Competition Commission v Beefcor (Proprietary) Limited and Another

In September 2017, the Competition Commission referred a complaint to the Competition Tribunal against Beefcor (Pty) Ltd and Cape Fruit Processors (Pty) Ltd, alleging a prohibited horizontal restrictive practice under section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998. Shortly before the scheduled Tribunal hearing, the Commission withdrew the complaint to explore settlement discussions. The Tribunal removed the matter from the roll. Settlement negotiations failed, and in October 2018 the Commission applied to the Tribunal to reinstate the withdrawn complaint. The respondents opposed reinstatement, arguing that section 67(2) of the Act barred a second referral because the withdrawal constituted 'completed proceedings'. The Tribunal held that the withdrawal did not amount to completed proceedings but refused reinstatement in the exercise of its discretion. The Competition Appeal Court overturned that interpretation, holding that withdrawal amounted to completed proceedings, thereby barring reinstatement. The Commission sought leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Leave to appeal was granted; the appeal was upheld; the order of the Competition Appeal Court was set aside; and no order as to costs was made.

This case clarifies the meaning of 'completed proceedings' in section 67(2) of the Competition Act and limits the double-jeopardy protection afforded to firms. It affirms that withdrawn complaints do not bar reinstatement or re-referral, thereby strengthening access to the Competition Tribunal and ensuring that competition complaints are determined on their merits. The judgment also confirms the application of section 39(2) of the Constitution to competition law and recognises the Tribunal’s implied powers.