South Africa Case Law

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

A'Africa Pest Prevention CC and Another v Competition Commssion of South Africa (168/CAC/Oct18)

A'Africa Pest Prevention CC and Another v Competition Commssion of South Africa (168/CAC/Oct18) [2019] ZACAC 2 (2 July 2019)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

168/CAC/Oct18

Judges

Boqwana JA, Victor JA, Van der Linde AJA

The court held that, although the appellants operated with a high degree of commercial unity and shared management, their structure did not meet the statutory requirements for exemption under section 4(5)(b) of the Competition Act. The ownership and control of the close corporations were not analogous to a parent and wholly-owned subsidiary, as required by the Act. The court found that the submission of identical bids, determined by the same individual, did not amount to collusive tendering or price fixing in the absence of evidence of an agreement or concerted practice between independent fi…

Source excerpt

• Single Economic Entity
• Collusive Tendering
• Price Fixing
• Horizontal Relationships
• Characterisation Of Conduct

Competition Commission v Delatoy Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (CR212Feb15)

Competition Commission v Delatoy Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (CR212Feb15) [2016] ZACT 37; [2016] 1 CPLR 67 (CT) (14 April 2016)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR212Feb15

Judges

Medi Mokuena, Anton Roskam, lmraan Valodia

The Tribunal found that the Delatoy Group, comprising various companies, trusts, and individuals, operated as a single economic entity and thus constituted a 'firm' under the Competition Act. This conclusion was based on evidence of common directors, shareholding, financial flows, and coordinated conduct, including the orchestration of collusive tendering and subsequent asset transfers. The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that the statutory definition of 'firm' excluded groups of companies, emphasizing the functional and economic approach adopted in competition law. On prescriptio…

Source excerpt

• Collusive Tendering
• Single Economic Entity
• Prescription Of Complaints
• Piercing Corporate Veil
• Administrative Penalty

Competition Commission v Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others, In re: Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others v Competition Commission and Others (102/CAC/Jun 10)

Competition Commission v Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others, In re: Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others v Competition Commission and Others (102/CAC/Jun 10) [2012] ZACAC 10; [2013] 1 CPLR 17 (CAC) (14 December 2012)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

102/CAC/Jun 10

Judges

M J D Wallis, Davis, Ndita

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Commission's proposed amendment did not raise any novel legal issue or point of public importance. The court found that the amendment, as formulated, was not a new complaint but factual allegations that could have been advanced by proper amendment. The Tribunal's decision to allow the amendment was set aside because it misunderstood the nature of the complaint. The court held that s 4(5)(b) does not provide a basis for holding companies to be liable for administrative penalties imposed on subsidiaries for conduct involving third pa…

Source excerpt

• Referral And Initiation Of Complaints
• Joinder Of Parties
• Single Economic Entity
• Administrative Penalties
• Leave To Appeal

Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa, Competition Commission of South Africa v Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others (103/CR/Sep08)

Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Another v Competition Commission of South Africa, Competition Commission of South Africa v Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others (103/CR/Sep08) [2009] ZACT 68 (4 December 2009)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

103/CR/Sep08

Judges

N Manoim, M Holden, N Theron

The Tribunal withdrew an earlier separation order and directed that the competition complaint proceed in one hearing, because the issues were too intertwined to split neatly.

• Separation Of Issues
• Single Economic Entity
• Market Division
• Price Fixing
• Pleadings
• Expeditious Disposal

Competition Commission v Patensie Sitrus Beherend Beperk; Bezuidenhout and Another v Patensie Sitrus Beherend Beperk

Competition Commission v Patensie Sitrus Beherend Beperk; Bezuidenhout and Another v Patensie Sitrus Beherend Beperk [2002] ZACT 18 (8 April 2002)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

37/CR/Jun01

Judges

D. Lewis, F. Fourie, P. Maponya

The Tribunal found that the respondent, Patensie Sitrus Beherend Beperk, and its farmer-members do not constitute a single economic entity for competition law purposes. The relationship is not analogous to a parent-subsidiary structure, as individual farmers exercise independent control over their farms and hold only minority shares in the respondent. The relevant market was determined to be the provision of packing and marketing services for citrus fruit in the Gamtoos River Valley, not the international market for citrus fruit. The respondent is dominant in this market, packing at least 70%…

Source excerpt

• Abuse Of Dominance
• Exclusionary Conduct
• Relevant Market Definition
• Restraint Of Trade
• Single Economic Entity
• Remedies Under Competition Act

Distillers Corporation (SA) Ltd and Another v Bulmer (SA) (Pty) Ltd and Another (08/CAC/May01)

Distillers Corporation (SA) Ltd and Another v Bulmer (SA) (Pty) Ltd and Another (08/CAC/May01) [2001] ZACAC 4; [2001-2002] CPLR 36 (CAC); 2002 (2) SA 346 (CAC) (27 November 2001)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

08/CAC/May01

Judges

Davis, Selikowitz, Mailula

The Competition Appeal Court held that the asset transaction was a notifiable merger because it involved a direct acquisition of control under section 12 of the Competition Act.

• Merger Notification
• Definition Of Control
• Single Economic Entity
• Competition Act Interpretation
• Change Of Control
• Market Structure