|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| February 2024 |
|
|
Tribunal confirms settlement resolving alleged resale price maintenance with payment and compliance obligations.
Competition law – resale price maintenance – alleged minimum resale prices for calcitic agricultural lime (CAL) – section 5(2) of the Competition Act – settlement agreement confirmed by Tribunal – payment to National Revenue Fund – requirement to implement competition compliance programme.
|
13 February 2024 |
|
Tribunal confirms settlement resolving alleged agents’ commission-fixing, imposing payment, compliance programme and reporting obligations.
* Competition Act s4(1)(b)(i) — Alleged agreement to fix agents’ commission rates within industry committee. * Settlement and confirmation — Tribunal confirmation under s27(1)(d) read with s58(1)(a)(iii). * Settlement without admission of liability — monetary payment, compliance programme and reporting obligations as remedial measures.
|
13 February 2024 |
|
Tribunal orders controlled access for merger parties’ advisors to target’s confidential merger information under strict undertakings.
Merger review — Access to confidential information in Commission reports — Confidentiality undertakings for external legal and economic advisors — Inspection regime (unredacted materials, note-taking, formats, locations) — Timelines for requests and refusals — Tribunal oversight for disputes.
|
5 February 2024 |
|
Tribunal ordered controlled access for merger parties’ independent advisors to confidential merger-report material, with redactions and inspection controls.
* Competition law – merger proceedings – access to confidential information in the Competition Commission’s merger report by merger parties’ independent advisors – confidentiality undertakings, redaction of highly sensitive material, inspection regime, and expedited dispute resolution.
|
5 February 2024 |
| January 2024 |
|
|
Tribunal grants limited intervention and document access to applicant to litigate foreclosure, employment and remedial-condition concerns in merger.
Merger intervention — leave to intervene under s 53(c)(v) — scope limited to customer foreclosure, input foreclosure, employment/regional impact and adequacy of conditions — rights of intervenor to adduce evidence, cross-examine, access confidential Commission record and merging parties’ documents subject to undertakings — temporary read-only inspection of excluded documents — Commission to provide unredacted index.
|
15 January 2024 |
|
Whether the applicant may intervene in merger proceedings to address employment and employment equity ownership, with costs awarded against merging parties.
* Competition law – merger review – intervention – leave to intervene granted to trade union applicant to make oral and written submissions limited to employment and employment equity ownership; costs awarded against merging parties.
|
15 January 2024 |
|
Tribunal grants applicants' external counsel and experts access to respondents' confidential merger materials, subject to confidentiality undertakings.
Competition law – merger review – access to confidential documents under section 45(1) of the Competition Act – applicants' external legal representatives and experts granted access subject to confidentiality undertakings; Commission directed to provide access by specified date; no order as to costs.
|
15 January 2024 |
| December 2023 |
|
|
|
19 December 2023 |
|
Applicant granted limited leave to intervene to challenge adequacy of the Commission’s local procurement remedy and access confidential report.
Competition law – merger proceedings – intervention under s53(1)(c)(v) – limited participation to assess adequacy of proposed local procurement remedy – confidential access subject to undertakings – procedural rights to submit written and oral submissions and to apply to call witnesses.
|
6 December 2023 |
| November 2023 |
|
|
Reported
Vertical merger raised input-foreclosure risk in domestic air freight; approved subject to five-year non-foreclosure behavioural conditions.
Competition — Vertical merger — Input and customer foreclosure — Sole provider of overnight full freighter services acquiring a consolidator — Differentiation between overnight freighter and daytime belly cargo — Behavioural remedies (non-discrimination, no tying) as mitigation — Public interest: employment and HDP ownership dilution.
|
1 November 2023 |
| September 2023 |
|
|
The Tribunal approved the merger subject to conditions requiring HDP-focused training, empowerment and supplier-development measures.
Merger control — approval under section 16(2)(b) — behavioural conditions imposed to advance HDP empowerment — obligations: training spend, entrepreneurial ownership programme, supplier development, monitoring and enforcement.
|
7 September 2023 |
| August 2023 |
|
|
Reported
Tribunal conditionally approves merger, imposing information‑sharing and South Africa activity limits to allay competition concerns.
Competition law – merger: undisclosed domestic activities of a foreign joint venture; vertical overlap – upstream underwriting vs downstream distribution (aYo SA); input/customer foreclosure assessment; behavioural remedies – board appointment restrictions and confidentiality undertakings; public interest – employment and ownership considered.
|
17 August 2023 |
|
Reported
Tribunal approved acquisition, finding no competition harm and imposing ESOP conditions to increase HDP ownership.
Competition law – Merger approval – No horizontal or vertical overlaps – Public interest assessment – Employment impact – Spread of ownership – ESOP condition increasing HDP participation – Approval subject to ESOP design and funding conditions (Annexure A).
|
8 August 2023 |
|
Reported
Acquisition approved on finding no substantial lessening of competition and subject to apprenticeship/HDP conditions.
Merger control – horizontal overlap in underground mining Load Haul Dumpers (LHDs) – market definition by equipment type and tonnage – reliance on parties’ market estimates – public interest conditions requiring extension of apprenticeship programme and HDP participation.
|
2 August 2023 |
|
Reported
Interim relief refused: supplier failed to prove monopsonistic abuse and respondent’s de‑registration was justified.
Competition law – interim relief (s49C) — requirements: prima facie prohibited practice; serious/irreparable harm to competitive position; balance of convenience; Abuse of dominance (s8(1)(c)) — exclusionary acts by a dominant buyer (monopsony) require evidence of anti‑competitive effects and lack of objective justification; State organs — Competition Act binds the State and Tribunal may grant s49C relief against administrative decisions that are economic activity; Procedural – declaration of single economic entity unnecessary.
|
2 August 2023 |
| July 2023 |
|
|
Tribunal approved an internal restructuring unconditionally and a mall acquisition subject to procurement-related conditions.
* Competition/merger control – internal restructuring – target entities inactive – no competition concerns – unconditional approval
* Competition/merger control – property acquisition – community shopping centre – procurement-related considerations – approval subject to conditions
* Assessment of mergers where acquiring parties are holding/investment companies
|
13 July 2023 |
| May 2023 |
|
|
Tribunal interdicted the respondent from raising gas prices pending an investigation into alleged excessive pricing.
Competition law – excessive pricing – concurrent jurisdiction with sector regulator (Gas Act/NERSA) – interim interdict preventing price increase – refusal to suspend Commission summons (Group 5 precedent).
|
12 May 2023 |
| April 2023 |
|
|
Tribunal finds supplier and partner liable for excessive pricing of critical COVID‑19 hand sanitiser; fines R3.55 million.
Competition Act — Excessive pricing during a crisis; market power conferred by pandemic conditions; reseller mark‑ups and margins; partnership liability for profiteering; administrative penalty imposed.
|
3 April 2023 |
| March 2023 |
|
|
Plea of a global USD/ZAR cartel prima facie establishes jurisdiction; joinder allowed; time-bar and initiation not decidable on pleadings.
Competition law — Extra-territorial jurisdiction under s 3(1) — qualified-effects test (direct, foreseeable, substantial) — personal jurisdiction over foreign peregrini where adequate connecting factors shown — pleadings standards under CAC order and Tribunal Rule 15(2) — joinder and initiation (tacit initiation permissible) — s 67(1) time-bar requires factual enquiry — Tribunal discretion to condone procedural irregularities and direct respondents to plead over.
|
30 March 2023 |
|
The Competition Tribunal approved three notified mergers unconditionally, finding no competition concerns requiring conditions.
Competition law – merger control – approval without conditions; renewable-energy IPPs; retail pharmacy acquisition; automotive dealer acquisition.
|
24 March 2023 |
|
Tribunal approves hospital merger subject to extensive public‑interest healthcare, procurement, employment and information‑sharing conditions.
Competition law – merger approval – public interest conditions in healthcare – pro bono surgeries, training and clinic upgrades – procurement from Black‑owned businesses – capital expenditure and employment moratorium – employee benefit scheme – information‑sharing safeguards.
|
24 March 2023 |
|
Tribunal unconditionally approved an HDP-majority divestiture of a meat packing plant, finding no competition concerns.
* Competition law – Merger control – Approval of acquisition of meat packing plant – No conditions imposed.
* Divestiture condition – Sale to HDP-majority purchaser satisfies earlier Tribunal-imposed divestiture requirement.
* Market effects – Vertical supply relationship to a fast-food purchaser did not give rise to competition concerns.
|
15 March 2023 |
|
Tribunal approved multiple large mergers, imposing public-interest conditions only on the Epiroc mining-equipment transaction.
* Competition law – merger approval – assessment of competition and public-interest effects
* Public interest remedies – employee share ownership plan; retrenchment moratorium; skills, enterprise and supplier development funding
* Insurance portfolios – transfer via cell structure – approval without conditions
* Large mergers – unconditional clearance where no substantial lessening of competition or public interest concerns arise
|
14 March 2023 |
| February 2023 |
|
|
A vertical acquisition of a private-label supplier was conditionally approved—no foreclosure found, with procurement conditions to promote HDP/SME participation.
Vertical merger — private-label supply to wholesaler — national market assessment; no input or customer foreclosure found; public interest conditions to promote HDP/SME procurement; conditional merger approval.
|
27 February 2023 |
| January 2023 |
|
|
Tribunal approved the merger and issued an unconditional clearance certificate, subject to statutory revocation grounds.
* Competition law – Merger control – Approval under section 16(2)(a) of the Competition Act – Merger Clearance Certificate under Rule 35(5)(a).
* Procedure – Referral to Tribunal under section 14A / consideration under section 16(1).
* Conditions – No conditions imposed on approval.
* Revocation – Tribunal may revoke approval under section 16(3) for incorrect information, deceit, or breach.
* Appeal – Right to appeal to the Competition Appeal Court within 20 business days.
|
31 January 2023 |
|
Tribunal approved minority acquisition with negative control, finding no substantial competition or public‑interest concerns.
Competition law – Merger – Minority acquisition conferring negative control (s12(2)(g)) – No horizontal or vertical overlap – Low market share and capacity – Public interest: employment and HDP ownership.
|
31 January 2023 |
| April 2022 |
|
|
Respondent exploited temporary market power during COVID‑19, charged excessive mask prices, and was fined under section 8 and Regulation 4.
Competition — Excessive pricing (s 8) — Crisis context (COVID‑19) — Consumer Protection Regulations Reg 4 presumption — "Lucky monopolist"/temporary market power — Benchmark margins for resellers (10–15%) — Necessity of cost justification up the supply chain — Administrative penalty under s 59.
|
28 April 2022 |
| February 2012 |
|
|
Reported
Tribunal confirmed settlement finding the respondent contravened s4(1)(b)(i) via bitumen price‑fixing and imposed penalty plus compliance obligations.
Competition Act — Section 4(1)(b)(i) — Horizontal agreements/price‑fixing — Bitumen industry — Use of joint pricing mechanism (BPi/BPAF) to set Wholesale List Selling Price — Settlement agreement confirmed by Tribunal — Administrative penalty and compliance programme imposed.
|
22 February 2012 |
| January 2012 |
|
|
The Tribunal approved a vertical acquisition of a sole local reseller, finding no foreclosure or public interest harm.
Competition — Merger control — Vertical merger: manufacturer acquiring sole local value‑added reseller — foreclosure assessment; availability of alternative upstream suppliers and downstream distributors; public interest (employment) considered.
|
18 January 2012 |
|
Reported
A vertical acquisition of a yellow‑maize milling business was approved as unlikely to substantially lessen competition.
Competition — Merger — Vertical acquisition of yellow maize milling business — Vertical overlaps (financial services, chop, unprocessed maize) — Input/customer foreclosure assessed and found unlikely — Restraint of trade (two years) not unlawful — No coordinated or public interest concerns — Merger approved unconditionally.
|
16 January 2012 |
|
Merger in food‑distribution sector approved as unlikely to substantially lessen competition and raises no public interest concerns.
Competition — Merger approval — Distribution of frozen, chilled and dry food products to food service industry — Regional/provincial market assessment — Post‑merger shares low except in Western Cape but significant competitors remain — Public interest: minimal employment impact — Approval without conditions.
|
16 January 2012 |
|
Acquiring firm's purchase of remaining shares in retail‑property targets unlikely to substantially lessen competition; approved without conditions.
Competition — Merger approval; horizontal overlap in provision of rentable retail space (community and small regional shopping centres); market definition (11 km and 35 km radii); low combined market shares (~10%, ~14%); tenant countervailing power and manageable entry barriers; no vertical overlap; no public interest concerns; merger approved without conditions.
|
12 January 2012 |
| December 2011 |
|
|
Acquisition of six light‑industrial letting enterprises approved; low post‑merger shares and no public‑interest concerns.
Competition — merger control — acquisition of six light industrial letting enterprises — horizontal overlap in Longmeadow, Jet‑Park and Spartan rentable light industrial markets — post‑merger market shares below 10% — presence of significant competitors — no adverse public interest effects — unconditional approval.
|
22 December 2011 |
|
Tribunal approved the merger subject to divestiture to remedy local concentration in Nongoma and Matatiele.
Merger control – market definition (retail vs wholesale grocery; LSM segmentation) – local geographic markets – local market concentration – divestiture remedy to address substantial lessening of competition – public interest (employment) considerations.
|
20 December 2011 |
|
Tribunal unconditionally approved a civil engineering/pipeline merger, finding no substantial lessening of competition or collusion risk.
Competition: merger approval; Relevant market: civil engineering and CIDB grade 8/9 pipeline construction; Limited horizontal and vertical overlaps; Coordinated effects/collusion risk assessed and found unlikely; Low market shares; No public interest or entry‑barrier concerns; Unconditional approval.
|
14 December 2011 |
|
A three‑to‑two hybrid maize seed merger was prohibited for likely substantial anticompetitive effects and harm to small farmers.
Competition — Horizontal/intermediate merger in hybrid maize seed markets; market definition — national breeding and commercialisation markets; rejected separate "ultra‑early/irrigation" market; high entry barriers (locally‑adapted germplasm, advanced breeding technologies, brand and distribution); three‑to‑two merger leading to significant concentration; merger simulation predicts material unilateral price increases; claimed efficiencies (trait‑fee savings, dynamic germplasm gains) not shown to be merger‑specific, timely or sufficient; behavioural remedies (limited price cap, restrictive licensing) inadequate — structural divestiture preferable; public interest — likely harm to small‑scale and subsistence farmers; procedural — s45 disclosure dispute dismissed.
|
9 December 2011 |
| November 2011 |
|
|
Tribunal corrected the second respondent’s citation in a complaint referral following the applicant’s application and respondent’s consent.
Competition law — procedural amendment — correction of respondent's citation in complaint referral — Tribunal authorised to correct clerical errors with consent of affected party.
|
29 November 2011 |
|
Tribunal approved the acquisition of the target’s remaining shares under section 16(2)(b), subject to conditions.
* Competition law – Merger control – Approval under section 16(2)(b) – Transaction approved subject to conditions (Annexure A).
* Merger remedies – Tribunal’s power to impose conditions as part of conditional approval.
* Procedural – Hearing and decision dates; redaction of certain information in judgment.
|
23 November 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal confirms consent agreement where respondent admitted price-fixing and market allocation, fined and ordered compliance.
Competition law – Section 4(1)(b)(i) price-fixing and section 4(1)(b)(ii) market division – information exchange via industry body used to monitor market shares – consent agreement confirmed by Tribunal – administrative penalty and behavioural remedies.
|
16 November 2011 |
|
Merger in sugar-based confectionery approved unconditionally as unlikely to substantially lessen competition.
Competition law – merger control – confectionery sector – overlap in sugar-based confectionery (panned confectionery; toffees/chews/caramels) – post-merger shares below 20% – no substantial lessening of competition – no public interest employment concerns.
|
16 November 2011 |
|
Reported
The acquiring firm's purchase of two rebar/mesh businesses approved; merger unlikely to substantially lessen competition.
Competition — Merger control — Acquisition of jointly controlled rebar and mesh businesses — Relevant markets: rebar and welded mesh in Gauteng and Limpopo — Market shares moderate, several competitors remain — Leniency/cartel history noted; target not implicated — Recommendation for competition compliance programme — No substantial lessening of competition; unconditional approval.
|
10 November 2011 |
|
Tribunal confirms consent agreement finding the respondent facilitated price-fixing of SAFEX storage tariffs and imposes penalty.
Competition law – Section 4(1)(b)(i) – Horizontal price-fixing – Industry association facilitating joint determination of SAFEX grain storage tariffs – Exchange and aggregation of members’ cost information – Consent agreement – Administrative penalty – Compliance programme and cooperation obligations.
|
9 November 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal confirms consent agreement for admitted price-fixing of grain storage; penalty and compliance obligations ordered.
* Competition law – Section 4(1)(b)(i) – Horizontal price-fixing – Joint determination of daily grain storage tariff by industry association (GSI). * Consent agreements – Section 58(1)(a)(iii) read with section 58(1)(b) – Tribunal confirmation and variation of terms. * Administrative penalty – Section 59 – calculation (percentage of turnover), payment and transfer to National Revenue Fund. * Compliance undertakings – cooperation, testimony, production of evidence and mandated competition law compliance programme.
|
9 November 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal confirmed consent agreement finding the respondent partook in horizontal price-fixing of grain storage tariffs and imposed an administrative penalty.
Competition law – Horizontal agreement – Price-fixing – Agreement on daily grain storage tariff – Section 4(1)(b)(i) – Consent agreement under section 49D and confirmation under section 58 – Administrative penalty – Compliance programme and cooperation obligations.
|
9 November 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal confirms consent agreement where the respondent admitted participation in industry price‑fixing and agreed to a penalty.
* Competition law – horizontal price‑fixing – section 4(1)(b)(i) – industry association (GSI) jointly determining daily grain storage tariff. * Consent agreements – section 49D and section 58 – confirmation by Tribunal. * Administrative penalty – sections 59(1)–(4) – payment and transfer to National Revenue Fund. * Behavioural remedies – cooperation, evidence production, and compliance programme obligations.
|
9 November 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal confirms consent agreement: respondent admitted horizontal price‑fixing, paid penalty and must implement compliance measures.
Competition law — Cartel/price‑fixing — section 4(1)(b)(i) — Consent agreement under section 58(1)(a)(iii) — Administrative penalty (section 59) — Cooperation and compliance programme as behavioural remedy.
|
9 November 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal confirms consent resolving admitted horizontal price‑fixing of grain storage tariffs with penalty and compliance requirements.
Competition law – Section 4(1)(b)(i) – Horizontal price‑fixing – Joint determination of daily grain storage tariff by industry association – Consent agreement under section 58 – Administrative penalty and compliance obligations.
|
9 November 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal confirmed consent order where the respondent admitted horizontal price-fixing of grain storage tariffs and accepted a 4% penalty.
Competition law — Section 4(1)(b)(i) — Horizontal price-fixing — Joint determination of grain storage tariffs by industry association — Consent agreement under sections 49D and 58 — Administrative penalty — Cooperation and compliance programme obligations.
|
9 November 2011 |
| October 2011 |
|
|
An increased stake in a geographically distant shopping centre did not substantially lessen competition, so the merger was unconditionally approved.
* Competition law – merger approval – horizontal overlap – geographic market delimitation; remote shopping centres not competitors. * Market definition – localised retail property markets – geographic distance (approx. 250 km) precludes competition overlap. * Public interest – employment impact assessed and found absent.
|
31 October 2011 |
|
Reported
Tribunal dismisses jurisdictional objections: Commissioner-initiated complaint not prescribed and inspectors were directed to investigate.
* Competition law – section 5(2) – minimum resale price maintenance; * Procedural law – complaint initiation: distinction between complainant-initiated (s49B(2)(b)) and Commissioner-initiated complaints (s49B(1)); * Prescription/referral timing – s50(2) one-year rule applies only to complainant complaints; * Commission Rules (rule 16) cannot be read to alter statutory initiation/consequences; * Investigations – s49B(3) requirement to direct an inspector and s24 appointment of inspectors; evidential onus on respondent to prove lack of direction.
|
27 October 2011 |
