Tag: procedure

Procedural Misstep Topples Interim Order Against Google in Lottoland Dispute, or: the Power of (Missing) Ink

Posted on by Editor

By Jannes van der Merwe and Jenna Carrazedo

Introduction

On 12 of November 2024, the Competition Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) granted an interim relief order in favour of  Lottoland South Africa (Pty) Ltd (“Lottoland”) against Google Ireland Limited (“Google”) and Google South Africa (Pty) Ltd (“Google SA”). The Tribunal, sitting with a full panel of three members, provided substantive reasons in favour of Lottoland for their complaint lodged in December 2022, regarding the contravention of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“the Act”) by Google SA against Lottoland in 2020. The matter before the Tribunal involved Lottoland obtaining an interim relief order against Google SA for a period of six months or until the finalisation of the complaint, whichever occurs first, ordering Google SA to restore Lottoland’s access to Google advertisements (“Google Ads”) after Google SA terminated Lottoland’s access to Google Ads claiming that Lottoland had breached Google SA’s internal policies.[1]

Google brought a review against the decision by the Tribunal, arguing that the Order provided by the Tribunal is irregular because of its failure to adhere to Section 31(2)(a) of the Act. Section 31(2)(a) of the Act requires that the Chairperson of the Tribunal ensure that that at least one member of the panel is a person who has legal training and experience. Google argued that because the Order by the Tribunal was not signed by Adv Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC (“the Presiding Member”), the appointed member with such legal training and experience, the Order by the Tribunal is irregular.

Google’s legal representatives addressed a letter to the Chairperson of the Competition Tribunal advising that the Presiding Member did not sign the decision and that this contravenes section 31(2)(a) of the Act. Google requested that the decision be withdrawn due to the Competition Tribunal acting beyond the powers conferred onto it by the Act.

Despite Google’s contention that the Order should be withdrawn, both the Chairperson of the Tribunal, and Lottoland, responded to Google, stating that the proceedings have been concluded and that the Order is in accordance with the Act, referencing Section 31(4) and 31(6) of the Act. This stance adopted by Lottoland, as well as the Chairperson of the Tribunal, caused Google to launch their review to the Competition Appeal Court of South Africa (“the Appeal Court”).

Does an irregular decision amount to no decision?

Lottoland argued that the decision taken by the Tribunal was in fact a valid decision, as it was in compliance with Section 31 of the Act. However, Lottoland argued that, while maintaining that there is a valid decision taken, on Google’s own version the Appeal Court would not have jurisdiction to hear the review, as there would have been no decision taken by the Tribunal.

On this version, Lottoland contested whether the Appeal Court has jurisdiction to hear the review matter, stating that the decision itself is not in fact a decision of the Competition Tribunal, as it did not carry the Presiding Member’s express endorsement. In this regard, Lottoland argued that the requirements for the Appeal Court to exercise its review powers in terms of Section 37(1)(a) were not present, as it does not have the power to decide whether a decision is in fact a decision of the Competition Tribunal, or declare a decision invalid, which is not a decision. In support of its argument, Lottoland contended that Google should have pursued its remedies in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000, to set aside the decision of the Tribunal.

Google argued that the ‘decision’ taken by the Tribunal is ultra vires, as the Tribunal’s failure to have all three members of the panel contribute to the proceedings and exercising its functions in terms of Section 27 of the Act, led to the Tribunal’s failure to comply with Section 31(2)(a) of the Act. They further contended that Lottoland’s misinterpretation of their argument is wrong, as Google did not argue that the failure by the Presiding Member to contribute and sign the Order resulted in ‘no decision’ by the Tribunal, but that such ‘decision’ does not comply with Section 31(2)(a) of the Act. Google proffered the argument that the Appeal Court has the authority to review the decision made by the Tribunal in terms of Section 37(1) of the Act.

Accordingly, Google did not request the Appeal Court to determine whether a decision was taken, or whether such decision was unlawful, Google argued that the rendering of the decision is procedurally irregular as it did not comply with section 31(2)(a) of the Act. This is because the Presiding Member did not sign it, and that such a decision should be reviewed and set aside.

It was ultimately found that the Appeal Court has the jurisdiction to hear the review matter.

Procedural Irregularities

It is agreed that the interim relief matter was heard before a properly constituted panel and was properly assigned, however the review application seeks to investigate whether the Presiding Member’s failure to sign the Order caused an irregularity in the decision.

Google argued that the Act empowers three members of the panel to deliberate a matter, acting jointly and their failure to do so results in the panel not acting in accordance with the Act. To this extent, it was argued that the Presiding Member’s failure to participate in the proceedings until the matter is finalised is detrimental, as the interpretation of the Act requires a member with legal training and experience to signal finality. This failure resulted in the two members issuing the decision, which was against the provisions of the Act, as the Tribunal making the decision is an authoritative body encompassed by three members, and the failure to adhere thereto renders their decision irregular.

Lottoland argued that the two-panel member’s decision is in accordance with Section 36(6) of the Act and constituted a lawful decision. Relying on the matter between JSC v Cape Bar[2], Lottoland contested that the authority supports the argument that the members of the panel did not have to act jointly when having regard to the statutory provisions, because when there is a decision made by two-members, this renders a majority decision made by the panel members. Lottoland adopted the approach that the Presiding Member’s failure to render a decision as being “exceedingly passive”, and that the two-member decision is sufficient.

However, the matter brought before the Tribunal was assigned to three members but when reasons for the decision were circulated, no comments were received from the Presiding Member, with no explanation. The Appeal Court answered this question by putting forth that the Presiding Member did not participate in the proceedings, therefore the panel did not act jointly with no explanation for his failure to participate. The Appeal Court held that the decision falls to be reviewed and set aside.

The Appeal Court also considered whether to remit the decision back to the Tribunal or substitute the Order. As confirmed in Glaxo Welcome (Pty) Ltd and Others v Terblanche N O and Others, [3] the Appeal Court can correct the decision of the Tribunal where the result is a foregone conclusion or when further delay would cause undue prejudice. The Appeal Court that there was not a foregone decision but there was delay that has prejudiced Lottoland that Google has not addressed. However, the Appeal Court expressed its concerns and difficulty in granting a substitution order when the skills and expertise of the Tribunal are for the purpose of making these decisions mindfully. Thus, the Appeal Court was not satisfied that a substitution order should be granted as such a solution would be impractical when considering the brief period left in which the interim order will still be in effect.

The decision of the Appeal Court reviewed and set aside the decision of the tribunal.

Implications of the Tribunal’s Decision

This matter again highlights the importance that correct procedure is followed as to avoid decisions from being set aside once handed down. The administrative error of the Tribunal has resulted in more questions than answers.

Lottoland’s complaint, lodged in December 2022, was set down for hearing on 19 July 2023, despite the procedural directives after the hearing, the Tribunal only provided its decision on 12 November 2024, approximately 16 months after the initial hearing. Despite this delay, the Tribunal and its Presiding Member failed to ensure that its Order was compliant with the Act. As a result, and while acknowledging Lottoland’s own failure to launch the interim relief proceedings earlier, Lottoland was prejudiced by severe delays and, according to the Tribunal’s now set aside decision, were being harmed in the market by Google SA’s conduct, restricting Lottoland from making use of Google Ads.

It is worth noting that no reason was given for the lack of the Presiding Member’s participation and signature, only that he failed to do so. The seemingly insignificant act of signing an Order to comply with formalities, alternatively, a member’s failure to contribute, carries substantial weight, this is seen in the setting aside of the decision all because the one panel member with legal training and experienced failed to sign it.

This, unfortunately, resulted in further resources being expended by both Lottoland, Google, the Tribunal, and the Appeal Court. Proper procedure should always be followed to benign topics from evolving into a long, lengthy and costly process.

This judgement sets precedent for the setting aside of a decision of what can be labelled as administrative errors due to an appointed Presiding Member’s lack of participation, leading to procedural irregularities. As the Appeal Court rightfully stated, the Act regulates and controls proceedings and the functions of the authoritative bodies exercising their duties. Failure to comply with the Act should not be disregarded as an exceedingly passive point to take, but a failure to extinguish your duties for which you were appointed in terms of the Act, which causes harm and prejudice to the litigating parties.

[1] See https://africanantitrust.com/2025/01/29/betting-on-fair-play-competition-tribunal-orders-interim-relief-to-lottoland-in-google-ads-dispute/ by Matthew Freer, setting out the merits of the Interim Relief Order.

[2]Judicial Service Commission and Another v Cape Bar Council and Another (818/2011) [2012] ZASCA 115; 2012 (11) BCLR 1239 (SCA); 2013 (1) SA 170 (SCA); [2013] 1 All SA 40 (SCA) (14 September 2012)

[3] Glaxo Welcome (Pty) Ltd and Others v Terblanche N O and Others [2001-2002] CPLR 48 (CAC).

CCC draft Guidelines (no. 2/3): ‘Hearing Procedure’

Posted on by Editor

COMESA Competition Commission seeks input on Determination of Hearing Procedure Guidelines

By Gina Lodolo

We previously published an analysis of the regional antitrust enforcer’s recently-published “Settlement Guidelines”.

In this article, we briefly discuss the Hearing Procedure draft which has been published (in addition to the Administrative Penalties Procedure and Settlement Guidelines).  The draft Guidelines have been published for public stakeholder comments due by 12 November 2021. Fundamentally, the COMESA Competition Commission (“CCC”) emphasizes that, during its investigative proceedings, the principles of natural justice must be adhered to, in the sense that the parties have the right to be heard.

Hearings will be conducted during either of the following stages:

  1. The hearings during the investigations process;
  2. Hearing by the Director before publication of notice of compulsory recall of defective goods; and
  3. Hearing before the Committee for the Initial Determination (“Committee”) of cases.

The CCC notes that in regard to hearings for the initial determination of cases, hearings are not intended to be the major source of information because the primary method of information gathering will be gleaned from responses received from the
“Notice of Investigation” that will first be sent in terms of  Article 21(6)(a) and 22(1) of the Regulations.

When will the CCC hold hearings?

  1. May hold hearings during investigations (at any time);
  2. Shall hold a hearing:
    • Before making recommendations;
    • Before taking decisions; and
  3. (In its consumer-protection role only:) Before the CCC publishes a notice of a compulsory product recall.

Hearing procedure once it has been determined that a hearing will be held

  1. The CCC shall give fifteen working days notice to all of the parties involved;
  2. A notice will be published to invite interested parties;
  3. Notice of the main issue must be given within ten working days and will provide the main issues identified and the main questions that will be raised (any other questions may still be raised at the hearing as long as “they are reasonably related to the matter under investigation.”

During the Hearing

  1. The Committee will test the evidence before it and interrogate the CCC’s team that conducted the investigation.
  2. The party under investigation will also be provided the opportunity to:
    • Clarify and develop the evidence that it provided during the investigation;
    • Comment on and rebut evidence and information supplied by other parties; and
    • Make further representations, which may, in relevant cases, address the question of whether a practice has public benefits that may offset any adverse effects on competition.

After a Committee has been convened to hear the matter:

  1. Any party required to attend the hearing must be given twenty-one days’ notice of the hearing date.
  2. Upon application by a party, a pre-hearing can be requested to confirm that all of the parties can attend the hearing and have received all documentation relied on by the other party.

After the conclusion of the hearing, a decision will be made by the Committee within forty-five days. If the Committee finds that the respondent has breached the Rules or Regulations, in “appropriate instances” a remedy can be discussed.

Any party has a right of appeal and will do so in accordance with Rule 24(d), (e) and (f) of the COMESA Rules, 2004.

Competition Appeal Court’s Ruling in Standard Bank Case: A Changing of the Tides?

Posted on by Editor

Threat of Referral no Longer an Arrow in the Commission’s Quiver?

By AAT Senior Contributor Michael-James Currie

In the first week of June 2018, the South African Competition Appeal Court (CAC) upheld Standard Bank’s appeal and ordered that the Competition Commission (Commission) make available its investigation record to Standard Bank. Standard Bank is a respondent in the Commission’s ForEx investigation.

Standard Bank had requested that the Commission make available its record in terms of Rule 15 of the Competition Commission Rules. Rule 15 permits any member of the public to request access to the Commission’s non-confidential record. Standard Bank therefore brought its application in terms of Rule 15 not on the basis of it being a respondent to the Commission’s investigation but as an ordinary member of the public.

Although the CAC had in an earlier case, Group 5, set out the correct interpretation and application of Rule 15 and stated that:

  1. the Commission is obliged in terms of Rule 15 to make available its record of investigation;
  2. that the Commission must do so within a “reasonable time”; and
  3. that the Commission must disregard the applicants status as a litigant when determining what a reasonable time is.

The Tribunal in the Standard Bank case, however, deviated from the CAC’s binding decision in Group 5 and held that the Commission would only need to make its record available to Standard Bank at the time of discovery.

Accordingly, the CAC in the Standard Bank case found that the Tribunal took Standard Bank’s status as a litigant into account when assessing what a reasonable time would be by which the Commission was obliged to make available its record to Standard Bank. The CAC in Standard Bank confirmed that although the Tribunal is not bound by the stare decisis principle in relation to its own decisions, the Tribunal is bound by the CAC’s decisions. The Tribunal’s decision in Standard Bank was inconsistent with the CAC’s earlier decision in the Group 5 case – where the CAC expressly stated that there is no rational basis for linking the production of the Commission’s record with discovery proceedings. The Tribunal’s departure from the CAC’s earlier precedent was noted with concern by the CAC in Standard Bank.

The Commission argued – as justification for not producing its record – that Standard Bank was abusing its position as a litigant. In this regard, the CAC expressly rejected this argument and held that simply because a plaintiff would be better placed to plead its case after receiving the Commission’s record that, in of itself, does not amount to an abuse of process. The CAC held that it would only amount to an abuse of process if an applicant sought to rely on Rule 15 in order to avoid or delay having to plead within the prescribed time periods.

Furthermore, the CAC reaffirmed that a member of the public’s right to access the Commission’s record should not be prejudiced by the fact that such a member is also a litigant.

The Court’s Standard Bank decision is important as respondents will invariably be inclined to seek access to the Commission’s record prior to pleading their case. This may have a material impact on the Commission’s settlement strategy as respondents in settlement negotiations with the Commission are likely to request the Commission’s record in order to assess the strength of the Commission’s case against it before deciding whether to settle the case or not – thereby compelling the Commission to ensure that a robust investigation is conducted prior to entering into settlement negotiations with respondents.

Says John Oxenham, ‘the “threat of a referral” is unlikely to present the Commission with the same negotiating leverage as it may otherwise have enjoyed when respondents were kept in the dark as to the evidence which the Commission may have against them.’

Whether this all plays out in practice remains to be seen although any decision which promotes transparency and legal certainty can only be positive. It is for this reason that the CAC’s express criticism of the Tribunal’s decision to depart from established case precedent is particularly noteworthy as it is a stark reminder to all adjudicative bodies of the importance of adhering to the rule of law.