South Africa Case Law

Coca Cola Beverages South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (247/CAC/Jul23)

Coca Cola Beverages South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (247/CAC/Jul23) [2024] ZACAC 4 (7 October 2024)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

247/CAC/Jul23

Judges

Manoim JP, Nuku JA, Poyo Dlwati AJA

The Competition Appeal Court refused to transfer a review from the Competition Tribunal, holding there was no statutory or constitutional power to do so.

• Jurisdiction Of Competition Tribunal
• Transfer Of Proceedings
• Statutory Review
• Section 173 Inherent Powers
• Excessive Pricing
• Non Referral Decisions

Multichoice (Proprietary) Limited and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (10193/2014)

Multichoice (Proprietary) Limited and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (10193/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 37; [2014] 2 All SA 446 (GP); 2014 (1) SACR 589 (GP) (25 February 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

10193/2014

Judge

Mlambo JP

The court held that the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and open justice must be balanced against the accused's right to a fair trial. Broadcasting of criminal proceedings is permissible, provided adequate safeguards are in place to prevent prejudice to the accused and witnesses. The court found that audio coverage of the entire trial does not pose the same risks as audio-visual coverage and should be allowed. Audio-visual and photographic coverage is permitted for certain portions of the trial, excluding the testimony of the accused and his witnesses, unless they consent. The…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Open Justice Principle
• Fair Trial Right
• Broadcasting Of Court Proceedings
• Section 173 Inherent Powers
• Balancing Of Competing Rights

Mukaddam v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT 131/12)

Mukaddam v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT 131/12) [2013] ZACC 23; 2013 (5) SA 89 (CC); 2013 (10) BCLR 1135 (CC) (27 June 2013)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 131/12

Judges

Jafta, Moseneke, Bosielo, Khampepe, Nkabinde, Zondo, Mhlantla, Froneman, Skweyiya

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court erred by applying an incorrect standard for class action certification, failing to consider the interests of justice as required by section 173 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Appeal further erred by imposing an exceptional circumstances test for opt-in class actions and by dismissing the applicant's claims as not legally tenable, despite their potential plausibility under section 65 of the Competition Act. Certification requirements are flexible factors to be weighed in the interests of justice, not rigid prerequisites. The applican…

Source excerpt

• Class Action Certification
• Section 173 Inherent Powers
• Competition Act Claims
• Access To Court
• Interests Of Justice
• Damages For Anti Competitive Conduct