1
COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No: 013607
In the matter between:
Gas2Liquids (Pty) Ltd Applicant
and
The Competition Commission First respondent
The South African Petroleum Industry
Association Second respondent
BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd Third Respondent
Chevron South Africa (Pty) Ltd Fourth Respondent
Engen Petroleum Ltd Fifth Respondent
Sasol Group Services (Pty) Ltd Sixth Respondent
Shell South Africa Marketing (Pty) Ltd Seventh Resp ondent
Shell South Africa Refining (Pty) Ltd Eighth Respon dent
Total South Africa (Pty) Ltd Ninth Respondent
The Petroleum and Gas Corporation of
SA (Pty) Ltd t/a Petrosa Tenth Respondent
Easigas (Pty) Ltd Eleventh Respondent
Shell & BP South African Petroleum
Refineries (Pty) Ltd Twelfth Respondent
Sasol Synfuels Thirteenth Respondent
The National Petroleum Refineries of SA (Pty) Ltd F ourteenth Respondent
Natcos, a joint venture between
Sasol Ltd and Total SA (Pty) Ltd Fifteenth Responde nt
The Minister of Trade and Industry Sixteenth Respon dent
Panel: N Manoim (Presiding Member)
Y Carrim (Tribunal Member)
L Reyburn (Tribunal Member)
Heard on: 26 November 2012
Reasons and Order issued on: 23 January 2013
2
Reasons for Decision and Order
Introduction
1. This is an appeal by Gas2Liquids (Pty) Ltd (“Gas 2Liquids”) in terms of sec 10(3)
of the Competition Act against an exemption granted by the Competition
Commission (‘Commission’) to the South African Petroleum Association (‘SAPIA’)
and its members in terms of sec 10(8) of the Compet ition Act, Act no. 89 of 1998
(‘the Act’).
2. The Competition Commission and The South African Petroleum Association
(“SAPIA”) and its members are opposing the appeal, arguing that it be dismissed
with costs. 1
3. The exemption in this case relates to a set of a greements in the liquid fuel
industry that it is said require exemption to stabi lise the supply of liquid fuels. The
appellant, Gas2Liquids, seeks to have the exemption set aside. The appeal has
been unsuccessful for the reasons we explain in this decision.
4. As we later go on to explain, Gas2Liquids has s truggled to articulate the basis
for its appeal. In its notice of appeal Gas2Liquids raised numerous and
sometimes inconsistent grounds of appeal. These grounds narrowed dramatically
in its written heads of argument and reduced even f urther in its oral argument on
the day of hearing.
5. In a previous interlocutory decision in this mat ter we had to rule on two issues:
whether Gas2Liquids had locus standi to appeal – we decided it did; secondly
whether the appeal was a narrow one confined to the record before the
Commission or a wider one allowing new evidence to be introduced. We decided
1 SAPIA’s members are: BP Southern Africa, Chevron South Africa, Engen Petroleum, Sasol Group Services,
Shell South Africa Marketing, Shell South Africa Refining, Total South Africa, The Petroleum and Gas
Corporation of SA T/A Petrosa, Easigas, Shell & BP South African Petroleum Refineries, Sasol Synfuels, The
National Petroleum Refineries of South Africa, and Natcos, an Unincorporated Joint Venture between
Sasol and Total South Africa. The Commission, SAPIA and its members, with the Minister of Trade and
Industry are the respondents. The Minister of Trade and Industry, however, did not oppose the appeal.
3
it was a narrow appeal. Gas2Liquids had contended t hat the appeal was a wider
one. 2 That approach is itself instructive of its current difficulties. It pointed to the
fact that the appellant sought a basis for an appea l in a possible widened
proceeding, lacking confidence that it could find i t in the present record. In the
result we have not been persuaded that the appeal has merit.
Background
6. In December 2005 the country experienced a serie s of disruptions to fuel
supplies. The disruptions affected motorists, airpo rts and certain sectors of the
economy, specifically agriculture. The disruptions ranged in severity from the
inconvenient to serious losses for some businesses. The Minister of Minerals and
Energy, concerned about the crisis, appointed a tas k team to investigate its
causes and to make appropriate recommendations. 3 The task team, headed by
an erstwhile member of this tribunal, Marumo Moeran e, concluded that another
crisis could occur in the second half of 2006.
7. The task team identified a number of problems th at led to the crisis. Amongst
those relevant to the present case were the tight s upply demand situation,
scheduling of refinery shutdowns (specifically the possibility that refineries might
shut down at the same time thus exacerbating supply shortages) poor
communication amongst stakeholders and inadequate logistical infrastructure. 4
8. The Moerane Report concluded that stability coul d come about only through a co-
ordinated approach involving industry discussions o ver issues such as supply
2 See Gas2Liquids (Pty) Ltd v The Competition Commission, Tribunal Case no: 95/EA/Nov11 of 6 July 2012 .
SAPIA had argued as a point in limine that Gas2Liquids had not shown that it had a finan cial interest that
was affected by the granting of the exemption and therefore did not have locus standi in terms of section
10(8) of the Act. Gas2 Liquids as we noted also argued a point in limine regarding the nature o an appeal in
terms of section 10(8) contending that the appeal was a wide one not confined to the record before the
Commission. SAPIA disputed this as well contending that the appeal was a narrow one. The Commission
did not dispute Gas2 Liquids’ locus standi but did argue that the appeal was narrower than that contended
for by Gas2Liquids. At a pre-hearing the Tribunal directed that it would first decide those issues before
hearing the appeal. A hearing on those issues duly took place. On 6 July 2012 the Tribunal found that
Gas2Liquids did have locus standi but that the appeal was a narrow one which was confined to the record
before the Commission.
3 See Record page 249 Report of Moerane Investigating Team paragraph 1.
4 See Record page 250 Report of Moerane Investigating Team paragraph 5
4
lines and production shut-downs. But the Report rec ognised that such co-
ordination might infringe the Act. 5 It recommended that exemptions be sought.
9. On 5 June 2009 the Minister of Trade and Industr y granted the petroleum
industry a designation in terms of section 10(3)(b) (iv) for a period ending on 31
December 2015. SAPIA and its members applied to the Commission, and were
granted, on 17 March 2010, a short-term exemption f rom certain restrictive
practices. The objective of this exemption was to e nable SAPIA and its members
to collectively develop, plan and monitor the suppl y of liquid fuels during the
period of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. The exemption ended on 31 August 2010.
10. Five months prior to the expiry of the World Cup ex emption, SAPIA applied for a
further exemption until 31 December 2015. The appli cation covered a wide range
of cooperation agreements and practices which, acco rding to SAPIA, were
required to ensure the continuity and stability of liquid fuels supply to various
sectors and geographic locations in South Africa. I t concerned cooperation
agreements and/or practices between SAPIA and its m embers at the following
stages of the liquid fuels supply chain: inbound lo gistics; primary distribution;
terminal and depot operation, and shared services s uch as airport fuelling
services and port joint bunkering services. The exemption in essence covered the
same agreements as the World Cup exemption, but did not extend to the
wholesale, commercial and retail trade supply chain.
11. Upon receiving SAPIA’s application the Commissi on, as required by the Act,
published a notice in the Government Gazette inviti ng interested parties to make
written representations as to why the exemption should be refused. 6
12. The Commission received three submissions. One was from the National
Association of Automobile Manufacturers of South Af rica (“NAAMSA”), which
represented the interest of vehicle manufacturers, importers and distributors.
represented the interest of vehicle manufacturers, importers and distributors.
NAAMSA supported the application, indicating that i n order to ensure that there
5 Moerane report op cite paragraph 25.7.4.
6 On 30 July 2010 in Government notice No. 33399 published in terms of section 10(6)(a) & (b) of the Act.
5
was a stable supply of liquid fuels in the country it was necessary to coordinate
activities in the petroleum industry to optimise the usage of existing facilities. The
second submission was that of the South African Pet roleum and Energy Guild
and Others (“SAPEG”), a non-profit organisation est ablished to represent
emerging companies in the energy sector. Gas2Liquid s is a member of SAPEG.
SAPEG objected to the exemption, arguing that emerg ing players in the
wholesale market who are historically disadvantaged South Africans (“HDSAs”),
cannot get access to the national infrastructure us ed by the oil companies at
different stages of the liquid fuel supply chain. I t wanted fair and transparent
access for all its members to the infrastructure. The third submission was made
by NERSA, the National Energy Regulator of South Af rica. NERSA wanted to
confirm that the exemption application included the sharing of information which
related to the general operation of facilities in t he petroleum sector because, in
order for it to approve licenses to operate the fac ilities, licensees had to share
certain information with competitors. The Commissio n confirmed that the
exemption did indeed cover the sharing of such information.
13. Upon investigating the exemption the Commission found that the agreements
and practices contravened sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1) (b)(i) of the Act, but
concluded that the cooperation agreements and pract ices met the criterion set
out in section 10(3)(b)(iv) of the Act as they woul d contribute towards
maintaining the economic stability of the petroleum and refinery industry by
reducing the risks of fuel supply interruption. It also found that SAPEG’s
submissions fell outside the ambit of the Act and t hat there were government
regulations and policies in place which ensured acc ess for HDSAs and other
third parties to the national infrastructure used i n the industry. Moreover, it was
third parties to the national infrastructure used i n the industry. Moreover, it was
the Department of Energy’s and/or NERSA’s responsib ility to ensure that all
stakeholders, including SAPIA, comply with industry regulations. The
Commission thus granted SAPIA the second exemption on 3 October 2011 in
terms of section 10(3)(b)(iv).
14. Although the Commission did not accept the argu ment advanced by SAPEG it
was not unresponsive to its contentions. We set out below the terms of the
6
exemption. We underline those terms the Commission inserted to accommodate
the SAPEG concerns:
1. SAPIA and its members and any other approved
participants in exempt agreements and practices may not share
competitively sensitive information, except for the purposes
described in the exemption application.
2. If:
2.1 a party to an agreement or practice at any stag e of the liquid
fuels supply chain acts as an operator of the infrastructure or
coordinates the joint use of a facility to which th at agreement
or practice relates; and
2.2 it is necessary for that operating party to be provided with
disaggregated volume information of other participa nts, or
any other information which may lead to a substanti al
lessening or prevention of competition;
3. Then the operating party must not share that inf ormation
with the other participants, unless sharing the inf ormation is
necessary to ensure security, stability and continu ity of liquid
fuels supply, or is necessary for strictly operational purposes.
4. The employees of any operating party who receive such
information shall ensure that the information is he ld, maintained
and used separately, confidentially and on a need t o know basis
only.
5. SAPIA and its members may not share information
relating to setting margins, imposition of levies a nd / or approval
of tariffs, unless required to do so by the Departm ent of Energy
or NERSA.
6. SAPIA and its members and any other approved
participants are required to comply in all material respects with
all statutes, regulations and policies which have t he force of law,
and which directly relate to competition in the pet roleum refining
and marketing industry in South Africa. These indus try
regulations include but are not limited to: the Pet roleum
Products Amendment Act (58 of 2005), the Petroleum Pipelines
7
Act (60 of 2003), the National Ports Act (12 of 200 5), and
Regulations in terms of the Petroleum Pipelines Act and
National Ports Regulations.
7. SAPIA must open up its membership to accommodate
both existing and potential marketers in the petrol eum and
refinery market on fair, reasonable and transparent grounds.
(Our underlining)
8. SAPIA will provide the Commission with regular u pdates
regarding the implementation of the Department of E nergy’s
‘Energy Security Master Plan’.
15. The exemption period runs from 3 October 2011 to 31 December 2015.
16. On 10 November 2011, Gas2Liquids appealed the C ommission’s decision in
terms of section 10(8) of the Act. 7 SAPIA and the Commission both opposed the
appeal. 8
Legal framework of the exemption
17. Applications for exemption are made in terms of section 10(1) of the Act which
states:
A firm may apply to the Competition Commission to e xempt from the
application of this Chapter-
(a) an agreement or practice, if that agreement or practice meets the
requirements of subsection (3); or
(b) or category of agreements or practices, if that category of
agreements or practices meets the requirements of subsection (3).
7 Neither SAPEG nor any of its other members appealed although it was SAPEG that had made the original
representations to the Commission during its investigation.
8 Section 10(8) states: “The firm concerned, or any other person with a substantial financial interest
affected by a decision of the Competition Commission in terms of subsection (2), (4A) and (5), may app eal
that decision to the Competition Tribunal in the prescribed manner.”
8
18. This section has to be read in conjunction with section 10(3) which sets out the
requirements for exemption. It states that the Comm ission may only grant an
exemption if:
(a) Any restriction imposed on the firms concerned by the agreement
or practice concerned, or category of either agreem ents or practices
concerned, is required to attain an objective mentioned in paragraph
(b); and
(b) The agreement or practice
concerned, or category of agreements or
practices concerned, contributes to any of the following objectives:
(i) maintenance of promotion of export;
(ii) promotion of the ability of small businesses, or firms
controlled or owned by historically disadvantaged p ersons, to
become competitive;
(iii) change in productive capacity necessary to st op decline in
an industry; or
(iv) the economic stability of any industry designa ted by the
Minister, after consulting the Minister responsible for that
industry. (Our underlining)
19. Section 10(3) therefore sets out two requiremen ts that need to be established;
the Commission must first ascertain whether the res trictive practice is ‘ required’
in order to achieve one of the objectives listed in part (b) and secondly, that the
agreement or practice within the context of 10(a) ‘ contributes’ to achieving one of
the objectives listed in that sub-section. In this case the specific objective relied
upon is subsection (iv), the economic stability of an industry designated by the
Minister, after consulting the Minister responsible for that industry.
20. It is perhaps more helpful to reverse the order of the sub-paragraphs to
appreciate this, as this moves the analysis to a mo re logical one, involving first
the general consideration and then the specific one . Taking subparagraph (b)
first, the Commission asks whether, apart from the formal steps of the
designation having been complied with, the agreement meets the object on which
its application for exemption is premised; that is does it contribute to the
9
economic stability of an industry. In this case the Commission has done just that
and concluded that the agreements contribute to the economic stability of the
liquid fuels industry by ensuring stability of supply.
21. It then moves to the specific, viz. sub-paragra ph (a). Here it asks whether any
restriction imposed on the firms concerned by the a greement is necessary to
achieve the objective. There was a debate during th e hearing as to whether
restriction meant restriction on competition or mor e generally a restriction in its
unqualified sense.
22. Whilst the section does not insert any qualifyi ng language it is hard to see why
the concept restriction can have any other meaning than restriction on
competition. The Act is not concerned with any rest rictions parties may impose
on one another that are competition-neutral. In con sidering an exemption one is
concerned with whether restrictions on competition by way of an arrangement are
required to achieve the objective for which the exe mption has been sought. Thus
by way of example, if the parties to the present ex emption had sought to regulate
wholesale and retail prices as well, that would not have been a justified restriction
on competition as the object of stability could be achieved without this. Indeed
this is exactly what the Commission decided.
23. Expressed differently, sub-paragraph (a) ensures that parties to agreements that
purport to contribute to the objectives set out in subparagraph (b) do not get a
blank cheque to restrict competition more than is necessary.
The appeal
24. As we noted earlier, Gas2Liquids’ notice of appeal was lengthy and wide-ranging.
There would be little point in replicating the enti re document as in its heads of
argument Gas2Liquids restricted the basis of its ap peal to the grounds set out
below.
25. It alleged that the Commission erred on the fol lowing grounds in granting the
exemption:
10
1) “The agreements and/or practices covered by the exemption fall
outside the ambit of information exchanges that wer e intended by the
Minister of Minerals and Energy and the Minister of Trade and Industry
to be covered when the industry was designated for purposes of an
application in terms of s 10;
2) The agreements and/or practices covered by the e xemption, which,
taken individually and together, result in extensiv e exchanges of
detailed competitively sensitive information, have significant anti-
competitive effect;
3) The agreements and/or practices covered by the e xemption, whether
taken individually or together, are not “required” to ensure economic
stability of the industry;
4) The agreements and/or practices covered by the e xemption, can, at
best for SAPIA, be said to “contribute” to the econ omic stability of the
industry, but the economic stability of the industr y can also be secured
by less anti-competitive means, such as interaction under the auspices
of the Department of Minerals and Energy that inclu des not only
members of SAPIA, but all players in the industry;
5) The conditions attached to the exemption implici tly recognize that the
exemption improperly benefits only certain industry players and that its
operation must be extended to truly contribute to t he stability of the
industry; and
6) The conditions attached to the exemption fail to ad dress the significant
concerns associated with the grant thereof, and fai ls (sic) to incentivize
the SAPIA members to address matters truly required to ensure
stability of supply in the industry. ”
26. During oral argument there was a shift in emphasis. Gas2Liquids indicated at the
hearing that it did not take issue with the fact th at the agreements contributed to
the security of supply, the second requirement, but that it was limiting its
argument to the first requirement, namely whether t he restriction, i.e. the
restrictive practice imposed on competition, was re quired to meet the objectives
restrictive practice imposed on competition, was re quired to meet the objectives
of sec 10(3)(b)(iv). According to it, the Commissio n had erred by basing its
decision to exempt only on the second requirement a nd had neglected to
11
consider the first. As an example it pointed out th at documents demonstrating the
fact that a comprehensive investigation had been ma de by the Commission were
“patently absent from the record”. Nor, it argued, was there any indication that the
Commission had engaged with the Minister of Trade a nd Industry or the Minister
of Minerals and Energy to establish whether the agr eements were within the
ambit of practices considered by the Ministers to b e ‘required’ for the stability of
the industry.
Analysis of the grounds of appeal
27. As we noted earlier, most of the grounds raised in the notice of appeal have not
been persisted with in argument by Gas2Liquids. Ind eed the respondents
contend that notwithstanding the breadth of the original notice, some points in the
heads of argument are novel, whilst the rest appear to have been abandoned.
28. For purposes of analysis the grounds of appeal can usefully be grouped into four
categories:
1) Those that criticise the method the Commission a dopted in determining
the exemption;
2) Those that allege the exemption has anticompetit ive outcomes because it
is exclusionary of smaller firms in the industry ;
3) Those that allege that the purpose of the exempt ion could have been
achieved by less restrictive means that do not excl ude other firms
(although these are not articulated); and
4) Those that advance industrial policy arguments t hat it alleges the
Commission should have taken into consideration whe n deciding the
exemption application.
(There is some overlap between the second and third categories but for present
purposes that is not of consequence.)
The first category – Procedural
29. Sapia rightly points out that several of the issues advanced as grounds of appeal
were in fact grounds of review. But Gas2Liquids ele cted to appeal and not review
12
the exemption decision and cannot use the one to ad vance the cause of the
other. Indeed the approach that Gas2Liquids urged t he Tribunal to adopt in
deciding the appeal was more the methodology of rev iew proceedings than of an
appeal.
30. Gas2Liquids argued that in order to decide whet her the requirement set by
section 10(3)(a) had been met the Tribunal must con sider the following set of
three questions; firstly, whether the Commission ha d appreciated that it needed
to investigate this requirement, secondly whether t he Commission had in fact
investigated it, and finally, had the Commission ma de the correct decision based
on the information before it?
31. There are two problems with this argument. Firs t it advances a test formulated
not as a test on appeal but one that more closely r esembles a review. But even if
this test is an appropriate one for an appeal, some thing we do not accept,
Gas2Liquids still advanced nothing to suggest that the Commission had failed the
test.
32. Allied to this criticism of the Commission were allegations that the Commission
had not done a proper investigation before determin ing to grant the exemption.
Again, this ground would have been better found in a review. But even if it may
be considered as an appeal ground, no basis for it was advanced.
33. Although this point need not be taken further it is worth noting, in order to
forestall public concerns, that the Commission invi ted submissions from the
public, and save for those from SAPEG, those it received favoured the granting of
the exemption. Nor was the Commission passive in th is respect. It sought
comments from industry players who had not responde d to its notice in the
Government Gazette and the responses it elicited in this way were also
favourable to the exemption. The Commission moreove r did not uncritically
accept all the submissions that SAPIA advanced but did its own analysis of the
competition issues and concluded, unlike SAPIA, tha t the practices were
competition issues and concluded, unlike SAPIA, tha t the practices were
unlawful. The Commission further imposed conditions on the exemption to limit it
13
ambit, namely to ensure that it did not apply to wholesale or retail operations, and
to require SAPIA to widen its membership.
34. We thus find that the procedural grounds of cri ticism fail; both because they
constitute impermissible use of an appeal to found a review and secondly, that
the criticisms themselves are without substance in the record.
Second category
35. The contention here was that the Commission has not considered the
exclusionary effects of the exemption on smaller co mpetitors of the SAPIA firms.
The argument is that the exemption will perpetuate their exclusion from the
industry further.
36. That this should ground an appeal to set aside the exemption is fallacious on
several grounds.
37. First, the fact that an agreement which is the subject of an exemption has an
anticompetitive effect is a not a proper ground of appeal. An anticompetitive
effect is the rationale for an exemption.
38. Secondly there is nothing in the exemption that excludes non-parties from
becoming parties to the agreement. What language th ere is in the exemption on
this point is, as we showed in the underlined phras es in paragraph 14 above,
expressly inclusive and permissive.
39. Gas2Liquids then argued that despite this permissive language there is nothing in
the exemption to require SAPIA and its members to i nclude other firms such as
Gas2Liquids in their arrangements. Whilst this int erpretation is correct, it is still
insufficient to show that the exemption should not have been granted.
40. Even if the exemption perpetuates the exclusio n of non-SAPIA firms (something
its terms as we noted do not suggest) it does not f ollow, firstly that this would
14
have an anticompetitive effect, as the exclusion of some firms does not
necessarily equate to anticompetitive exclusion.
41. But even if this latter proposition is wrong, if, as the Commission has assessed,
orderly access to the infrastructure is the most im portant consideration, then any
loss to competition by possible exclusion of some f irms is a legitimate and
properly considered consequence of the granting of the exemption for the period
of time in which it will apply.
42. Indeed, the likelihood is that supply will remain at current levels regardless of any
increase in the number of firms accessing the infra structure. The problem for
smaller firms is not the exemption, but the current physical constraints on supply
as identified by the Moerane task team’s report.
Third category
43. Gas2Liquids argued that the Commission had not considered alternatives to the
present form of the exemption. However, it did not put forward what those
alternatives were and instead displayed a degree of ambivalence as to whether
the exemption should be granted in some modified fo rm or not at all as shown in
the following exchange between the presiding member and Gas2Liquids’
Counsel:
Chairperson: In other words, no exemption is required and the m arket will sort
itself out. Is that what you are saying?
Adv McNally
: It may be and that, as I say, will go back to the Commission. It
may be that in order to achieve that on an efficien t basis, there is some need
for the oil majors to know what the situation of th e minors is from time to time.
They need to know who is importing what and at what time. It may be. I’m not
saying it would be, but it may be that there are ce rtain practices that are
necessary to ensure that. We don’t know. What we do know is that this
practice is not necessary. It’s not the only way to achieve it. It’s not necessary
to achieve stability of supply.
15
44. It is thus incorrect to argue that the Commissi on had not considered any
alternatives. There were no viable alternatives bef ore it that it could rely on, only
sweeping statements made by SAPEG suggesting that t here were alternatives,
one of which was that third parties should be given access. Mere assertion that
there is an alternative without putting one forward , and moreover in compelling
terms, does not make the decision susceptible to appeal.
Fourth category
45. Into the final category are concerns that the C ommission has failed to take into
account other legislation and policy affecting the industry. These are industrial
policy arguments. The Commission is not obliged to consider such arguments
when it exercises its discretion in terms of sectio n 10. Nothing in the section
requires it to have regard to other legislation or to broader industrial policy issues.
Indeed we would suggest that the reason why two min isters of state are required
to perform functions as part of the section 10(3)(b )(iv) exemption process, is that
it would be for them, not the Commission to have re gard to broader issues of
industrial policy. The Commission correctly regarde d these issues as falling
outside of its statuary mandate.
Conclusion
46. The agreements provide for the regulation of a bottleneck infrastructure. By its
very nature this is a scarce resource that has to b e rationed amongst its users by
way of them reaching agreement on co-ordinating acc ess. The Commission’s
decision not to make the exemption dependant on it being extended to all players
in the industry cannot be faulted. If it had, the v ery instability that premised the
need for the exemption would again eventuate. The C ommission’s decision to
provide instead for a permissive rather than mandatory regime for access by non-
Sapia firms is a sensible compromise.
47. Gas2Liquids has not shown that the terms of the exemption have gone beyond
47. Gas2Liquids has not shown that the terms of the exemption have gone beyond
its stated objective and given SAPIA a ‘blank chequ e’ to engage in
16
anticompetitive activity not justified by the requi rements of section 10(3)(b)(iv).
For this reason the appeal must fail.
Conclusion and Order
48. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is liabl e for the costs of the second to
fifteenth respondents, including the costs of two counsel.
23
January 2013
N Manoim Date
Concurring: Y Carrim and L Reyburn
Tribunal Researcher: Rietsie Badenhorst
For the Applicant: Adv J.P.V McNally SC and Adv M.J Engelbrecht,
instructed by Darryl Ackerman Attorneys
For 1
st Respondent: Adv J.A Motepe, instructed by the Comp etition
Commission with heads of argument prepared by
Adv. I.V Maleka S.C and Adv J.A Motepe.
For 2
nd – 15th Respondents: Adv A Cockrell SC and Adv D Turner, i nstructed
by Bell Dewar Inc.