Pretoria Portland Cement Company Limited and Another v Competition Commission and Others

The Competition Commission obtained ex parte search and seizure warrants under s 46 of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 to search the premises of Pretoria Portland Cement Company Ltd (PPC) and its subsidiary Slagment (Pty) Ltd in August 2000. The warrants were issued in chambers by a High Court judge. During execution, the Commission allegedly refused to provide access to the founding affidavit, denied the appellants knowledge of the accusations, and allowed an uninvited television crew to be present, resulting in a serious invasion of privacy. The appellants brought urgent proceedings to interdict further use of the seized material and to set aside the warrants. The High Court ultimately dismissed their application, holding the warrants valid. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The search and seizure warrant issued under s 46 of the Competition Act was set aside, and the execution of the warrant was declared invalid.

The case is significant for clarifying that judges who issue search warrants should not be cited as parties in proceedings challenging those warrants. It underscores the constitutional and statutory limits on search and seizure under competition law and affirms that invasive investigatory powers must be exercised with strict regard to privacy, dignity and procedural fairness. The judgment also cautions against overly formalistic distinctions between judicial and administrative action.