South Africa Case Law

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Moollas Transport Services CC trading as My Bus African Grey and Others (D174/2022)

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Moollas Transport Services CC trading as My Bus African Grey and Others (D174/2022) [2024] ZAKZDHC 29 (21 May 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D174/2022

Judge

McIntosh

The High Court upheld an exception to a counterclaim based on alleged Competition Act damages, holding that no cause of action arose without a Tribunal finding and certificate.

• Exception Procedure
• Cause Of Action
• Prohibited Practices
• Damages Claim
• Competition Tribunal Referral
• Exception-procedure

Lewis Stores (Pty) Ltd v Summit Financial Partners (Pty) Ltd and Others (314/2020)

Lewis Stores (Pty) Ltd v Summit Financial Partners (Pty) Ltd and Others (314/2020) [2021] ZASCA 91; 2022 (1) SA 377 (SCA) (25 June 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

314/2020

Judges

Ponnan, Wallis, Mocumie, Dlodlo, Eksteen

The Supreme Court of Appeal held there is no appeal under the NCA against the Tribunal’s grant of leave for a direct referral of a complaint.

• National Credit Act
• Leave To Refer
• Appealability
• Prohibited Practices
• Costs Orders
• National-credit-act

City of Cape Town v WBHO Construction (Pty) Ltd and Others (86873/2014)

City of Cape Town v WBHO Construction (Pty) Ltd and Others (86873/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 271 (31 March 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

86873/2014

Judge

AC Sasson

The High Court granted the City of Cape Town leave to amend its particulars of claim in a collusive-tendering damages case against construction firms.

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Collusive Tendering
• Prohibited Practices
• Section 65 Certificate
• Exception Procedure
• Amendment-of-pleadings

Premier Foods v Manoim NO (20147/2014)

Premier Foods v Manoim NO (20147/2014) [2015] ZASCA 159; 2016 (1) SA 445 (SCA); [2016] 1 All SA 40 (SCA); [2015] 2 CPLR 335 (SCA) (4 November 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20147/2014

Judges

Maya, Shongwe, Petse, Gorven, Baartman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Competition Tribunal lacked the power to make a declaration against Premier Foods because Premier was not cited as a respondent in the complaint referrals and no relief was sought against it. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to matters properly referred to it, and the absence of citation is fatal to its power to make any order against Premier. The declaration made by the Tribunal is therefore a nullity and does not require formal setting aside before it can be disregarded by a court. Consequently, neither the Tribunal nor its Chairperson can law…

Source excerpt

• Corporate Leniency Policy
• Prohibited Practices
• Cartel Activity
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunal
• Declaration Nullity
• Damages Claims

Linpac Plastics (SA) Pty Ltd and Another v Du Plessis and Another, In Re: Linpac Plastics Ltd and Others v Du Plessis and Others (019513)

Linpac Plastics (SA) Pty Ltd and Another v Du Plessis and Another, In Re: Linpac Plastics Ltd and Others v Du Plessis and Others (019513) [2014] ZACT 64; [2014] 2 CPLR 516 (CT) (6 November 2014)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

019513

Judges

Norman Manoim, Andiswa Ndoni, Mondo Mazwai

The Tribunal held that the prescription period in section 67(1) of the Competition Act does not apply to referrals made by a civil court under section 65(2)(b). The language of section 67(1) is specific to complaint referrals initiated under section 49B and does not extend to court referrals, which are governed by a distinct process. The Tribunal distinguished between the public nature of complaint referrals and the private nature of court referrals, noting that the latter bypasses the Competition Commission and is limited to the parties in the civil suit. The Tribunal found that imposing the…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Period
• Court Referral
• Prohibited Practices
• Section 65 Referral
• Section 67 Limitation

Astral Operations Ltd v Nambitha Distributors (Pty) Ltd; Astral Operations Ltd v O'Farrell N.O and Others (689/2013; 13794/2011)

Astral Operations Ltd v Nambitha Distributors (Pty) Ltd; Astral Operations Ltd v O'Farrell N.O and Others (689/2013; 13794/2011) [2013] ZAKZDHC 57; [2013] 4 All SA 598 (KZD) (15 October 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

689/2013; 13794/2011

Judge

Gorven

High Court held a counterclaim seeking referral of competition issues and voiding of contractual clauses did not disclose a cause of action; exception upheld.

• Prohibited Practices
• Competition Tribunal Referral
• Contractual Clauses Voiding
• Restrictive Practices
• Abuse Of Dominance
• Price Discrimination

Premier Foods (Pty) Ltd v Manoim NO and Others (38235/2012)

Premier Foods (Pty) Ltd v Manoim NO and Others (38235/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 236; [2013] 2 CPLR 367 (GNP) (2 August 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

38235/2012

Judge

N Kollapen

The Court held that the Competition Tribunal is empowered under section 58(1)(a)(v) of the Competition Act to declare the conduct of any firm, including non-cited parties, to be a prohibited practice, provided there is a proper factual basis and fair hearing. Premier Foods, although not formally cited as a respondent, participated fully in the proceedings, confessed its role in the cartel, and was represented by counsel. The Tribunal's finding and order regarding Premier were based on the referral and evidence, and did not violate the audi alteram partem principle. The certificate under secti…

Source excerpt

• Corporate Leniency Policy
• Prohibited Practices
• Section 58 Orders
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Class Action Certification
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunal

Competition Commission v Egoli Gas (Pty) Ltd (2009Jan4212)

Competition Commission v Egoli Gas (Pty) Ltd (2009Jan4212) [2013] ZACT 20; [2013] 1 CPLR 73 (CT) (28 March 2013)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

2009Jan4212

Judges

N Manoim, M Mokuena, M Holden

The Competition Tribunal confirmed a consent order finding Egoli Gas had entered market-allocation agreements with Sasol Gas and imposed a R1.63 million penalty.

• Market Allocation
• Prohibited Practices
• Administrative Penalty
• Consent Agreement
• Gas Distribution
• Compliance Programme

GlaxoSmithKline South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Lewis N.O. and Others (62/CAC/APR06)

GlaxoSmithKline South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Lewis N.O. and Others (62/CAC/APR06) [2006] ZACAC 6; [2007] 1 CPLR 18 (CAC) (6 December 2006)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

62/CAC/APR06

Judges

Selikowitz JA, Davis JP, Mhlantla AJA

The Court held that the Competition Tribunal correctly refused to confirm the settlement agreement as a consent order under section 49D of the Competition Act. The Commission's power to settle is inseparable from its power to prosecute; once the statutory period for referral or non-referral expires, the Commission loses both powers. The agreement reached between the Commission and the applicant was merely a settlement agreement and did not constitute an 'appropriate order' as contemplated by section 49D. The application for confirmation was brought after the Commission had lost its title to p…

Source excerpt

• Consent Order
• Settlement Agreement
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunal
• Timing Of Referral
• Ultra Vires
• Prohibited Practices

Nqobion Arts Business Enterprise CC and Business Place Joburg & BeEntrepreneuring (80/IR/Aug05)

Nqobion Arts Business Enterprise CC and Business Place Joburg & BeEntrepreneuring (80/IR/Aug05) [2006] ZACT 24; [2006] 1 CPLR 115 (CT) (22 March 2006)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

80/IR/Aug05

Judges

U Bhoola, N. Manoim, Y. Carrim

The Competition Tribunal dismissed an interim-relief application over the “Arts Tuesday” trademark, finding no jurisdiction after non-referral and no proven prohibited practice.

• Interim Relief
• Abuse Of Dominance
• Prohibited Practices
• Intellectual Property Rights
• Jurisdiction
• Condonation