The third appellant ("SABMA") was an association of manufacturers in the lead acid battery manufacturing industry. The first two appellants were respectively the association's chairman and secretary. The first respondent ("SABIA") was an association aimed at examining legislative or policy proposals likely to affect battery importers in South Africa, and engaging with legislative or regulatory authorities to further the interest of the association and its members.
The plaintiff was the curator ad litem of a minor. She instituted action against the defendants, jointly and severally, for damages for loss of support arising from the death by shooting of the minor’s mother. On the basis that the second to fifth defendants were members of the South African Police at the relevant time and had been acting within the course and scope of their employment, the defendants filed a first special plea that the claim had "prescribed" in terms of section 32 of the Police Act 7 of 1958.
The first applicant (“Discovery”) was the sole shareholder of the second and third applicants (respectively “Discovery Life” and “Discovery Vitality”). Discovery owned two trademarks, namely Discovery and Vitality – registered in relation to insurance services, among others. Discovery permitted Discovery Life and Discovery Vitality to use the trademarks under section 38 of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993. Discovery Vitality’s primary business comprised the Vitality wellness and rewards programme (the Vitality programme), which it administered.
In September 2017, the Competition Commission referred a complaint to the Tribunal against the respondents (“Beefcor” and “Cape Fruit”) whom it accused of having been engaged in a prohibited practice under section 4(1)(b) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998. The Commission alleged that the respondents had agreed not to compete in the market for processing wet peels and citrus peel pulp used in the production of livestock feed.
A competitor of the respondent (Media24) lodged a complaint with the applicant (the Competition Commission) who then conducted an investigation. After its investigation, the Commission referred a complaint regarding Media24’s alleged predatory pricing to the Competition Tribunal.
At the heart of the present appeal was the correct interpretation of section 67(1) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 which states that, “A complaint in respect of a prohibited practice may not be initiated more than three years after the practice has ceased”. The Competition Tribunal held that the date on which the appellant (the Commission) acquired knowledge of the date on which the prohibited practice ceased, was not the trigger event for the commencement of the running of the three-year period referred to in section 67(1).
Bringing an urgent application, the applicant complained that the prominent use of the word "BUTTER" on the respondent's label for its "STORK BUTTER SPREAD" product misrepresented that it was pure butter and not a modified butter product. According to the applicant, the respondent’s conduct contravened sections 3 and 6 of the Agricultural Products Standards Act 119 of 1990 (the "Act") and the Regulations Relating to the Classification, Packing and Marking of Dairy Products and Imitation Dairy Products intended for sale in the Republic of South Africa, GN R1510 ("the Regulations”), published under the Act.
The first respondent (the “ARB”), as self-appointed watchdog in the advertising industry, made disciplinary rulings against the applicant (“Bliss”) arising out of complaints filed by the second and third respondents (“Colgate”). The complaints were that the Bliss packaging of its SECUREX soap bar contained similarities in its architecture and parts of its get-up to the packaging of Colgate’s competing PROTEX soap bar which were likely to cause confusion amongst consumers of those soap products. A similar complaint was made in relation to the fabric softener brands. At the end of the appeal process before the ARB, a final ruling was issued directing that Bliss could no longer sell its soap using its current packaging.
In these proceedings the Claimants challenge the validity of the Defendant's ("Gilead's") supplementary protection certificate SPC/GB05/041 ("the SPC") for a product described in the SPC as "Composition containing both Tenofovir disoproxil, optionally in the form of a pharmaceutically acceptable salt, hydrate, tautomer or solvate, together with Emtricitabine".
A deadlock having arisen between the first respondent (Mr Moonisami) and the second appellant (Dr Palani), the two directors of the first appellant ("Blendrite"), Mr Moonisami brought an application for the liquidation of the company.