South Africa Case Law

Coca-Cola Beverages Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission and Another (CCT 192/22)

Coca-Cola Beverages Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission and Another (CCT 192/22) [2024] ZACC 3; 2024 (6) BCLR 771 (CC); [2024] 7 BLLR 665 (CC); (2024) 45 ILJ 1507 (CC); 2024 (4) SA 391 (CC) (17 April 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 192/22

Judges

Zondo CJ, Chaskalson AJ, Dodson AJ, Kollapen J, Mathopo J, Mhlantla J, Rogers J, Schippers AJ, Tshiqi J

The Constitutional Court held that rule 39(2)(b) requires a special statutory review and that Coca-Cola’s retrenchments were not shown to be merger-specific.

• Merger Control
• Retrenchment Conditions
• Special Statutory Review
• Causation In Employment
• Competition Act
• Labour Relations Act

Santam Limited v Absa Insurance Company Limited's Intermediated Commercial Lines Business (LM014APR16)

Santam Limited v Absa Insurance Company Limited's Intermediated Commercial Lines Business (LM014APR16) [2016] ZACT 61 (12 September 2016)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

LM014Apr16

Judges

Norman Manoim, Medi Mokuena, Andiswa Ndoni

The Competition Tribunal approved Santam’s acquisition of ABSA Insurance Company’s intermediated commercial lines business, subject to a one-year no-retrenchment condition.

• Large Merger Review
• Public Interest Employment
• Market Definition
• Short Term Insurance
• Retrenchment Conditions
• Large-merger-review

Aon South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission, In re: Aon South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Glenrand MIB Ltd (37/AM/Apr11)

Aon South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission, In re: Aon South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Glenrand MIB Ltd (37/AM/Apr11) [2011] ZACT 100; [2012] 1 CPLR 132 (CT) (24 November 2011)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

37/AM/Apr11

Judges

Norman Manoim, Andreas Wessels, Merle Holden

The Tribunal found that the merging parties had, through several exercises and methodologies, followed a rational process to determine the number and category of employees at risk of retrenchment. The evidence showed that far fewer jobs would be lost than initially anticipated, and greater protection was afforded to unskilled employees. The merging parties justified the need for retrenchments based on Glenrand's poor market performance and the necessity to lower operating costs, which would benefit consumers through lower premiums. The Tribunal held that the conditions proposed, including a t…

Source excerpt

• Merger Control
• Public Interest Employment
• Retrenchment Conditions
• Labour Relations Act
• Competition Act Section 16

Business Venture Investments No. 976 (Pty) Limited and SAGE Group (Pty) Limited (54/LM/Jun05)

Business Venture Investments No. 976 (Pty) Limited and SAGE Group (Pty) Limited (54/LM/Jun05) [2005] ZACT 87; [2006] 1 CPLR 130 (CT) (29 November 2005)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

54/LM/Jun05

Judges

Norman Manoim, M. Moerane, M. Mokuena

The Competition Tribunal approved Momentum’s acquisition of Sage, subject to a condition governing any compulsory retrenchments and limiting variation from the submitted plan.

• Large Merger Review
• Public Interest Employment
• Vertical Integration
• Market Definition
• Retrenchment Conditions
• Large-merger-review

Lonmin Plc and Southern Platinum Corp (41/LM/May05)

Lonmin Plc and Southern Platinum Corp (41/LM/May05) [2005] ZACT 49; [2005] 2 CPLR 531 (CT) (22 July 2005)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

41/LM/May05

Judges

Y Carrim, M Holden, M Madlanga

The Competition Tribunal conditionally approved Lonmin’s acquisition of Southern Platinum Corp, imposing retrenchment and employee-training conditions.

• Large Merger Review
• Public Interest Conditions
• Horizontal Merger Effects
• Vertical Merger Effects
• Retrenchment Conditions
• Large-merger-review