Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Doorware CC v Mercury Fittings CC (836/2023) [2025] ZASCA 25 (27 March 2025)
The Supreme Court of Appeal struck an application for reconsideration of leave to appeal, holding that no exceptional circumstances were shown and the interim interdict was not appealable.
Competition Commission v Primedia (Pty) Ltd t/a Ster Kinekor Theatres and Another (161/CAC/Feb18) [2019] ZACAC 3 (2 July 2019)
The Competition Appeal Court dismissed an appeal over an alleged market-allocation agreement in cinema exhibition, finding insufficient proof of post-Act implementation.
Competition Commission of South Africa v Pickfords Removals SA (Pty) Ltd (167/CAC/Jul18) [2019] ZACAC 5; [2020] 1 CPLR 55 (CAC) (3 April 2019)
The court held that section 67(1) of the Competition Act creates a limitation period that runs from the cessation of the prohibited practice, not from the date the Commissioner acquires knowledge of the practice. The provision is substantive, not procedural, and does not allow for condonation unless expressly provided for, which is not the case here. The second complaint initiation was considered an amendment of the first, but for the respondent, the relevant initiation date was when it was first named. Consequently, any alleged contraventions that ceased more than three years before the seco…
Source excerpt
Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others v Competition Commission South Africa and Others, Feltex Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission South Africa and Others (102/CAC/Jun10) [2011] ZACAC 4; [2011] 1 CPLR 19 (CAC) (6 May 2011)
The Tribunal's decision to allow amendments to the complaint referral was final and appealable as it disposed of jurisdictional issues. The Commission failed to properly initiate a complaint against Feltex regarding the chemical cartel, and the statutory scheme requires strict compliance with initiation, investigation, and referral procedures. The attempt to introduce new parties and causes of action by amendment was impermissible. Section 4(5)(b) of the Competition Act is exclusionary and cannot be used to attach liability to Steinhoff International and Steinhoff Africa for conduct involving…
Source excerpt
Competition Commission and American Natural Soda Ash CHG Global (Pty) Ltd (disqualification) (49/CR/Apr00) [2006] ZACT 75 (6 September 2006)
The Tribunal held that section 3(1) of the Competition Act does not require 'effect' to mean adverse or harmful effect. The word 'effect' bears its ordinary meaning of result, consequence, or outcome, and the Act's jurisdiction is established by the presence of economic activity within or having an effect within South Africa, regardless of whether the effect is negative. The Tribunal rejected Ansac's arguments based on textual ambiguity, policy, and international law, finding no authority or consistent international rule requiring proof of harm for jurisdiction. The Tribunal further held that…
Source excerpt
American Natural Soda Ash Corporation and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa (554/2003) [2005] ZASCA 42; [2005] 1 CPLR 1 (SCA); [2005] 3 All SA 1 (SCA); 2005 (6) SA 158 (SCA); 2005 (9) BCLR 862 (SCA) (13 May 2005)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that its jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Competition Appeal Court is derived from the Constitution and cannot be ousted by the Competition Act. Special leave to appeal is required for such matters, and the test for granting leave includes both reasonable prospects of success and special circumstances. The Act applies to all economic activity having any effect within South Africa, not only adverse effects, and the Tribunal and Commission have jurisdiction accordingly. The Act's complaint procedure allows any person to submit a complaint, and particular da…
Source excerpt
American Natural Soda Corporation and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (577/2002) [2003] ZASCA 70; [2003] 3 All SA 487 (SCA) ; [2003] 1 CPLR 1 (SCA); 2003 (5) SA 655 (SCA) (2 June 2003)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that leave to appeal from the Competition Appeal Court was still required, and dismissed the application with costs.
Explore more
