The concept of dominance through the lens of Babelegi and Dis-Chem Discussion of Competition Commission v Babelegi Workwear Overall Manufacturers and Industrial Suppliers CC CR003Apr20 and Competition Commission v Dis-Chem Pharmacies CR008Apr20

This contribution provides an analysis of two landmark decisions of the Competition Tribunal in Competition Commission and Babelegi Workwear Overall Manufacturers and Industrial Suppliers CC CR003Apr20 and Competition Commission and Dis-Chem Pharmacies CR008Apr20. Arising from broadly similar sets of facts, and producing almost identical responses from the competition authorities, the decisions are significant for South Africa competition law, not only as the first to be considered under section 8(1)(a) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 but also due to a range of novel issues arising from the cases and findings of the Competition Tribunal. While the judgments, which were handed down a few years ago, remain sensations in many competition law lecturing halls across the country, they have to date elicited a disappointing rate of return in terms of legal academic commentary and debate. This contribution provides an overview of the two decisions, focusing particularly on the Tribunal’s decision to avoid defining the relevant markets for purposes of establishing dominance, but concluding nevertheless that the two firms were dominant and ultimately that they had abused their dominance by charging excessive prices in violation of section 8(1)(a) of the Competition Act.