Takata South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others(252/CAC/Feb24) [2025] ZACAC 1.

1. Case Title and Citation 

Takata South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Competition Commission of South Africa and Others (252/CAC/Feb24) [2025] ZACAC 1. 

2. Court Name and Bench 

Competition Appeal Court (CAC), South Africa. 

Coram: Vally AJA, Nkosi AJA (majority judgment), Murphy AJA concurring. Bench type: Appeal bench reviewing a Competition Tribunal decision.  

3. Date of Judgment: 16 January 2025. 
4. Parties Involved 

Appellant 

• Takata South Africa (Pty) Ltd: A manufacturer and supplier of occupant safety  systems components (airbags, seatbelts) to vehicle manufacturers. Also, a former  subsidiary of Takata Corporation (Japan). 

Respondents

• Competition Commission: Complainant and initiator of the referrals. • Takata Corporation: Parent company and 4 Other multinational suppliers of OSS  components (TRW entities; Autoliv entities). 

5. Facts of the Case 

Between 2012 and 2018, the Competition Commission initiated and referred 21 separate  complaints alleging that Takata SA, Takata Corporation, and other OSS manufacturers  engaged in a collusive conduct in contravention of section 4(1)(b) of the Competition Act.1 The allegations centered on price-fixing, market division, and collusive tendering in the  supply of OSS components to automotive OEMs.  

Takata SA raised exceptions to all 21 complaint referrals, alleging: 

• failure to disclose a cause of action; 
• vagueness and embarrassment; 
• reliance on impermissible inferences. 

Takata Corporation separately challenged jurisdiction as a foreign peregrinus but later abandoned its exceptions after the Commission filed supplementary affidavits post-Forex. 

In December 2023, the Tribunal dismissed all 21 exceptions, finding that the referrals  complied with Rule 15(2)2 and disclosed a valid cause of action. It further directed Takata  SA to file answering affidavits which Takata SA did “under protest”.  

Takata SA then launched both an appeal and a review before the Competition Appeal  Court, challenging the Tribunal’s refusal to uphold the exceptions.  

6. Issues Raised 

• The first issue raised was whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of exceptions is  appealable, given that exceptions are generally interlocutory. 
• The second issue raised was if appealable, whether the Tribunal erred in finding  that the referrals disclosed a cause of action; contained sufficient particularity; and  correctly attributed conduct to Takata SA. 
• The third issue was whether the Tribunal’s decision was reviewable under PAJA  or the principle of legality. 
• The fourth issue was whether the same grounds raised on appeal may properly  form the basis of a review. 

7. Arguments of the Parties 

• Appellant (Takata SA): The Commission’s referrals impermissibly relied on the  alleged “design and overall strategy” of Takata Corporation and on the inference  that Takata SA was a party to parent-level collusion. These allegations were not  pleaded, rendering the referrals vague and lacking a clear cause of action. The  Tribunal erred in relying on Takata SA’s answering affidavit, which was filed “under  protest,” to infer clarity. It is submitted that the appeal should be heard in the  interests of justice, given the reputational harm to Takata SA and the significant  burden of facing twenty-one separate proceedings. Alternatively, the decision  should be reviewed on the basis that the Tribunal took irrelevant considerations  into account, committed errors of law, and acted irrationally. 
• Respondent (Competition Commission): Exceptions are not appealable, as  consistently held in Zweni, Ciba Packaging, and Forex. The decision in question is  interlocutory and not final, and no irreparable harm arises from it. Furthermore, the  grounds for appeal and review are identical, rendering the review an impermissible  attempt to circumvent the rule against non-appealability. The referrals were made  in compliance with Rule 15(2) and clearly disclosed a case to meet.

8. Judgment / Final Decision 

The Competition Appeal Court held: 

• The appeal is dismissed. 
• The review is dismissed. 
• Takata SA to pay costs of both proceedings, including costs of two counsel.  

9. Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi 

The CAC reaffirmed that the dismissal of exceptions is generally not a final decision and  is therefore not appealable, unless the interests of justice require otherwise. In reaching  this conclusion, the Court applied the principles established in Zweni, the expanded  “interests of justice” test from Lebashe, and its own approach in Forex and Shoprite.  Takata SA failed to demonstrate that the Tribunal’s decision was final in effect, definitive  of the parties’ rights, or disposing of substantial relief, noting that reputational harm alone  was insufficient. The Court also highlighted that further delay, given that the matter had  already persisted for over 12 years, would be undesirable and contrary to the interests of  justice.  

The Court, also criticised Takata SA’s attempt to characterise its case as both an appeal  and a review, noting that appeals and reviews serve different purposes: an appeal  considers whether the Tribunal’s decision was right or wrong, whereas a review assesses  whether the Tribunal exercised its powers properly. Using the same grounds for both  processes constitute an abuse of process, and where an appeal and review are  simultaneously brought, the grounds must differ; since Takata SA duplicated grounds, the  review could not stand. Even if considered on the merits, the alleged errors of law or  irrationality could not be sustained, as the Tribunal’s findings complied with Rule 15(2)  and its reasoning demonstrated no failure to apply its mind. Finally, the Tribunal correctly  dismissed the exceptions, as the Commission’s referrals disclosed a cause of action,  provided sufficient particularity, and identified the alleged collusion. The CAC emphasised  that exceptions should not be employed to defeat referrals prematurely.

10.Conclusion / Significance 

This judgment is significant for competition litigation strategy and administrative law, as it  reaffirms the limited appealability of interlocutory Tribunal rulings and establishes a firm  rule against duplicating appeal and review grounds, thereby preventing procedural abuse.  It also highlights the Competition Appeal Court’s concern about excessive delays in  Tribunal decisions and strengthens the principle that exceptions should not stifle  competition prosecutions unless defects are truly incurable. For practitioners, the case  underscores the importance of carefully distinguishing between appeal grounds and  review grounds, while illustrating the challenges of appealing procedural decisions in  competition matters. 

REFERENCE(S) LIST: 

1. Competition Act 89 of 1998 (SA). 
2. Uniform Rules of Court, 1965.

1 Competition Act, 1998, S 4(1)(b). 

2 Uniform Rules of Court, 1965, Rule 15(2).