Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Commercial And Corporate [2018] ZAKZPHC 30

Ukhahlamba Poultry Farm (Pty) Ltd v South African Poultry Association (AR446/2017)

Ukhahlamba Poultry Farm (Pty) Ltd v South African Poultry Association (AR446/2017) [2018] ZAKZPHC 30 (3 August 2018)

Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Case number
AR 446/2017
Judges
Gorven, Balton, Bezuidenhout

Clause 8(b) of Government Notice No. R954 is grammatically clear and imposes liability for payment of the statutory levy only on the supplier of packaging material for the packing of eggs, not on the egg producer. The supplier is defined in the notice and is the only entity mentioned as liable to pay the levy to the levy administrator. The phrase 'on behalf of the egg producers' does not create direct liability for the egg producer to pay the levy to the administrator. The context of the Act, the purpose of the notice, and the marketing chain provisions support this interpretation. No evidenc…

Source excerpt

  • Statutory Interpretation
  • Marketing Of Agricultural Products Act
  • Levy Liability
  • Agency Principles
Read case analysis
Competition Law [2000] ZASCA 60

South African Raisins (Pty) Ltd. and Another v S A D Holdings Ltd. (176/2000)

South African Raisins (Pty) Ltd. and Another v S A D Holdings Ltd. (176/2000) [2000] ZASCA 60; 2001 (2) SA 877 (SCA); (29 September 2000)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
176/2000
Judges
Grosskopf, Howie, Plewman, Melunsky, Farlam

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Competition Act applies to the raisin industry because there is no existing directive, regulation, or authorisation under the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act that governs monopolistic or anti-competitive acts in the sector. The Marketing of Agricultural Products Act is merely enabling and does not itself constitute public regulation for the purposes of s 3(1)(d) of the Competition Act. The Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to issue the interim orders, and the High Court erred in declaring those orders null and void. The appeal was allowed, an…

Source excerpt

  • Competition Act Application
  • Public Regulation Exclusion
  • Marketing Of Agricultural Products Act
  • Jurisdiction Of Competition Tribunal
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.