IRM150 1PORTFOLIO
EXAM SEMESTER 2
ANSWERS 2025
IRM150 1PORTFOLIO EXAM SEMESTER
2 ANSWERS 2025
, IRM1501 PORTFOLIO EXAM
QUESTION 1
Facts
- Parties: Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd (a black‑owned, independent retailer
operating in Virginia) and Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd (a dominant national retailer
group).
- Brief background: Everfresh alleged that Shoprite, by virtue of its dominant position
in the SA retail market, engaged in anti‑competitive practices that disadvantaged
small, black‑owned retailers like Everfresh.
- Conduct alleged: Shoprite’s distribution and supplier practices, including exclusive
supply arrangements and terms that allegedly foreclosed or forewarned independent
traders from accessing key products, credit terms, and favorable shelf space in a
way that harmed Everfresh and impeded entry/retention of small players in the
market.
- Lower decision: The Competition Tribunal/Commission proceedings addressed
whether the conduct violated the Competition Act (and, if so, what remedy should
follow). The case ultimately reached the Constitutional Court for constitutional
interpretation.
- Core issue at stake: Whether SA competition law could and should be interpreted
in a manner that advances transformation and redress for the historically
disadvantaged, not merely in purely neutral economic terms.
Legal question
- Primary question: Does the Constitution require and permit the interpretation of the
Competition Act (and competition law in general) in a transformative manner that
EXAM SEMESTER 2
ANSWERS 2025
IRM150 1PORTFOLIO EXAM SEMESTER
2 ANSWERS 2025
, IRM1501 PORTFOLIO EXAM
QUESTION 1
Facts
- Parties: Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd (a black‑owned, independent retailer
operating in Virginia) and Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd (a dominant national retailer
group).
- Brief background: Everfresh alleged that Shoprite, by virtue of its dominant position
in the SA retail market, engaged in anti‑competitive practices that disadvantaged
small, black‑owned retailers like Everfresh.
- Conduct alleged: Shoprite’s distribution and supplier practices, including exclusive
supply arrangements and terms that allegedly foreclosed or forewarned independent
traders from accessing key products, credit terms, and favorable shelf space in a
way that harmed Everfresh and impeded entry/retention of small players in the
market.
- Lower decision: The Competition Tribunal/Commission proceedings addressed
whether the conduct violated the Competition Act (and, if so, what remedy should
follow). The case ultimately reached the Constitutional Court for constitutional
interpretation.
- Core issue at stake: Whether SA competition law could and should be interpreted
in a manner that advances transformation and redress for the historically
disadvantaged, not merely in purely neutral economic terms.
Legal question
- Primary question: Does the Constitution require and permit the interpretation of the
Competition Act (and competition law in general) in a transformative manner that
