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
1 court collection
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
Competition Law [2014] ZACT 64

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
Read case analysis
Competition Law [2010] ZACT 39

Competition Commission v Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others, In re: Competition Commission v Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others (103/CR/Sep08)

Competition Commission v Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others, In re: Competition Commission v Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others (103/CR/Sep08) [2010] ZACT 39; [2010] 1 CPLR 174 (CT) (8 June 2010)

Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
103/CR/Sep08
Judges
Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Takalani Madima

The Tribunal held that the Competition Commission is not required to specify all respondents at the time of initiating a complaint under section 49B(1). The Act requires only that the Commission initiate a complaint against an alleged prohibited practice, with a rational link to the relevant prohibition. The Commission's initiation documents and subsequent investigation satisfied the jurisdictional requirements for referral against Feltex, Steinhoff, and Kap. The Tribunal adopted a purposive approach, emphasizing the public interest in prosecuting anti-competitive conduct and avoiding a mecha…

Source excerpt

  • Initiation Of Complaint
  • Joinder Of Parties
  • Amendment Of Referral
  • Section 4 Horizontal Practices
  • Section 49b Initiation
  • Section 67 Limitation
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.