Competition Commission of South Africa v Stuttafords Van Lines Gauteng Hub (Pty) Ltd and Others

Representatives of several furniture removal firms attended a meeting of the Northern Province Professional Movers Association on 22 January 2014. During a brief discussion on the impact of Gauteng’s newly implemented e‑toll system, various firms mentioned how they were dealing with toll costs, including references to amounts around R350. Draft minutes recorded that it was ‘generally concurred’ that a levy of R350 would be added to removal costs. After legal advice, the minutes were amended to reflect that each firm would act independently. In 2017 the Competition Commission initiated and referred a complaint alleging that the firms had agreed to fix prices by adding an R350 levy to counter e‑toll costs, in contravention of section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998.

The cross‑appeal by the respondents succeeded; the Tribunal’s finding that an agreement contravening section 4(1)(b)(i) had been concluded was set aside. The Commission’s appeal on prescription was dismissed. The complaint referral was dismissed.

The case clarifies the evidentiary threshold for proving collusive conduct under section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Competition Act. It confirms that industry discussions and references to prices, without proof of consensus to be bound, do not constitute price fixing. The judgment reinforces Competition Appeal Court jurisprudence on the meaning of an ‘agreement’ and guards against over‑extension of per se prohibitions in competition law.