Advertising Regulatory Board NPC and Others v Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd

The Advertising Regulatory Board NPC (ARB), a private self-regulatory body in the advertising industry, considered a complaint lodged by Colgate-Palmolive against its competitor, Bliss Brands, alleging that Bliss Brands’ Securex soap packaging breached the Code of Advertising Practice by imitating Colgate’s Protex packaging. Bliss Brands was not a member of the ARB but did not object to its jurisdiction and fully participated in the ARB proceedings, ultimately losing before the Final Appeal Committee (FAC), which ordered Bliss Brands to cease distribution of the offending packaging. Bliss Brands then approached the Gauteng Division of the High Court to review and set aside the FAC decision. The High Court, raising constitutional issues mero motu, declared parts of the ARB’s Memorandum of Incorporation unconstitutional and held that the ARB lacked jurisdiction over non-members. The ARB and Colgate appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The High Court’s order was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the constitutional and declaratory relief sought by Bliss Brands. Certain remaining issues were remitted to the Gauteng Division of the High Court for determination.

This case reaffirms the limits on courts raising constitutional issues mero motu, underscores the doctrine of precedent, and confirms the lawful authority of private regulatory bodies like the ARB to exercise public functions. It provides important clarity on the jurisdiction of advertising self-regulatory bodies over non-members and protects the functioning of advertising regulation in South Africa.