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
2 court collections
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 [2021] ZACT 91

Competition Commission v Supra Healthcare Cape Town (Pty) Ltd (CO204Mar21)

Competition Commission v Supra Healthcare Cape Town (Pty) Ltd (CO204Mar21) [2021] ZACT 91 (12 March 2021)

Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
CO204Mar21
Judges
AW Wessels, Y Carrim, E Daniels

The Tribunal confirmed the consent agreement between the Competition Commission and Supra Healthcare Cape Town (Pty) Ltd. The Commission's investigation established that Supra Healthcare charged excessive prices for medical examination gloves supplied to the Western Cape Department of Health during the Covid-19 disaster period, with profit margins exceeding the public procurement benchmark. Supra Healthcare did not dispute the findings and agreed to a settlement including undertakings to desist from excessive pricing, implement a compliance programme, and provide surgical masks to the Departm…

Source excerpt

  • Excessive Pricing
  • Covid 19 Regulations
  • Dominance
  • Public Procurement
  • Section 8 Competition Act
Read case analysis
Competition Law [2020] ZACAC 9

Competition Commission v Shoprite Checkers [Pty] Ltd and Another (183/CAC/Apr20 CT; CR228DEC18/DSM258FEB19)

Competition Commission v Shoprite Checkers [Pty] Ltd and Another (183/CAC/Apr20 CT; CR228DEC18/DSM258FEB19) [2020] ZACAC 9 (27 October 2020)

Court
Competition Appeal Court
Case number
183/CAC/Apr20 CT
Judges
Vally JA, Mnguni

The Tribunal's findings in paragraphs [28], [36], and [37] were definitive and final, as they precluded the Commission from pursuing its case based on the Single Economic Entity doctrine in section 8 abuse of dominance proceedings. The Commission could not meaningfully amend its referral without repeating averments already rejected by the Tribunal, rendering the opportunity to amend illusory. The Tribunal erred in restricting the SEE doctrine to section 4 horizontal practices and in failing to recognise that the pleaded facts could support its application to section 8. The findings in [28], […

Source excerpt

  • Abuse Of Dominance
  • Single Economic Entity
  • Exception Procedure
  • Accessory Liability
  • Section 8 Competition Act
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.