Caxton and CTP Publishers and Printers Limited v Naspers Limited and Others

Naspers proposed a large merger to take control of M-Net and Supersport, requiring approval by the Competition Tribunal. Caxton, a competing print media publisher, applied to intervene in the merger proceedings, alleging that the merger would enhance Naspers’ market dominance and enable anti-competitive conduct such as bundling, foreclosure and cross-subsidisation. The Competition Tribunal granted Caxton leave to intervene but limited the scope of its intervention to specific issues of foreclosure and bundling. Caxton launched an urgent review in the Competition Appeal Court, arguing that the Tribunal acted ultra vires by restricting the ambit of its participation.

The review application was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case clarifies that intervention in merger proceedings under South African competition law is discretionary and may be limited in scope. It affirms the Tribunal’s authority to control its own proceedings and balance participation rights against procedural efficiency, shaping how third parties engage in merger control processes.