On 25 January 2008, Siyakhuphuka Investment Holdings (the appellant) submitted an unsolicited proposal to Transnet National Ports Authority (the second respondent, a division of Transnet SOC - the first respondent) for developing a container operation at the Port of Richards Bay. The proposal was developed in collaboration with Maersk shipping line and aimed to address development needs in Zululand by creating container shipping connections to global markets. On 30 April 2009, the respondents rejected the proposal. The appellant filed a complaint with the Ports Regulator alleging that the second respondent, operating as a division of the first respondent with a mandate to increase market share, had lost its ability to fairly determine applications and would be competing with the appellant. The Regulator ruled on 15 July 2015 that the proposal was outdated and did not meet requirements for unsolicited bids under the National Ports Act. On 2 April 2014, while the Regulator complaint was pending, the appellant filed a prohibited practice complaint with the Competition Commission alleging: (1) that the second respondent's lack of independence from the first respondent violated section 8 of the Competition Act as an abuse of dominance, and (2) that the respondents rejected the appellant's proposal but then provided it to Transnet Port Terminals (TPT), the appellant's direct competitor, which implemented the concept despite previously stating Richards Bay terminal was unsuitable for containers. The Commission issued a notice of non-referral on 14 September 2015. The appellant self-referred the matter to the Competition Tribunal on 10 October 2015. The respondents raised two points in limine: (1) that the issues were the same as those in review proceedings before the Durban High Court regarding the Regulator's decision, and the matter was fundamentally one of public law over which the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction; and (2) that claims regarding the subsequent announcement of container terminal development did not form part of the original complaint and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider them. The Tribunal upheld both points in limine on 17 October 2017 and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, relying on AEC Electronics v Department of Minerals and Energy, finding that the second respondent was exercising public power when considering concessions.
The appeal was upheld with costs (including costs of two counsel). The order of the Competition Tribunal dated 17 October 2017 was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the exception. The matter was effectively remitted to the Competition Tribunal for determination on the merits.
The Competition Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints alleging contraventions of the Competition Act even where the conduct complained of involves a statutory entity exercising powers under sector-specific legislation, provided the complaint is properly characterized as alleging anti-competitive conduct rather than the improper exercise of public power. Section 3(1A)(a) of the Competition Act establishes concurrent jurisdiction between competition authorities and other regulatory authorities where both have jurisdiction over conduct regulated under the Competition Act. The characterization of a complaint for jurisdictional purposes must be based on the pleadings and the actual nature of the claim asserted, not merely on how the complaint is styled or worded. A complaint alleging abuse of dominant position, refusal to provide access to essential facilities, and other contraventions of section 8 of the Competition Act falls squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the competition authorities, even if the conduct also involves the exercise of statutory powers under the National Ports Act. The fact that a complainant may have parallel remedies in public law does not oust the jurisdiction of the competition authorities where the complaint properly alleges contraventions of competition law. Competition authorities are the primary authority in competition matters, and where concurrent jurisdiction exists, both sets of proceedings may be pursued simultaneously or sequentially.
The court noted that the Regulator itself had indicated in its decision that the monopolistic operation of container terminals in the South African ports system was a competition matter better dealt with by the Competition Commission. The court suggested, without definitively deciding, that it was arguable from a competition law perspective that the second respondent should be treated as an independent entity from TPT for competition law purposes, given the requirements in the National Ports Act for the second respondent to operate independently of the broader first respondent group. The court observed that if the Tribunal were to find in favor of the appellant on the merits, any remedy granted would need to be consistent with the requirements of the National Ports Act, including section 56(5) which requires a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective procedure. The court's comments suggest that the distinction between exercising public power and engaging in economic activity may depend on the specific context and whether the entity is acting to advance commercial competitive goals rather than purely regulatory objectives.
This case is significant for clarifying the jurisdiction of competition authorities in South Africa where statutory entities exercise powers under sector-specific legislation. It establishes that the Competition Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints alleging anti-competitive conduct even where the conduct involves the exercise of statutory powers, provided the complaint properly alleges contraventions of the Competition Act. The case affirms the principle of concurrent jurisdiction established by section 3(1A)(a) of the Competition Act, clarifying that competition authorities have primary jurisdiction in competition matters even where another regulator has jurisdiction over the same industry or sector. It distinguishes between situations where a complaint concerns the improper exercise of public power (which would be a public law matter) versus situations where a complaint concerns the abuse of market power and anti-competitive conduct (which falls within competition law jurisdiction). The case also confirms that a complainant may pursue separate claims under competition law and public law simultaneously or sequentially in different fora, provided the claims are based on different legal rights. The decision is important for understanding the scope of the Competition Tribunal's jurisdiction and the relationship between competition law and sector-specific regulation in South Africa.