This blog site was authored by Felix Le Roux.
In an August 2023 judgment, the Johannesburg High Court struck from the roll an immediate application brought by a South African supplier to interdict a Chinese maker from offering specific of its items to 3rd parties who are understood by it to be dispersing those items on Takealot in competitors with the supplier. The court verified the concept that a South African court will just approve interdictory relief versus a foreign participant if the acts that are the topic of the interdict occur within South Africa.
The supplier and maker concluded a contract in May 2023 in regards to which the supplier had the unique right to offer the maker’s renewable resource items on the online shopping platform, Takealot, for 36 months. The supplier brought the immediate application on the basis that a variety of its rivals were offering the maker’s renewable resource items on Takealot, which the supplier’s sales were diminishing as an outcome. The maker opposed the application on the basis that the court does not have jurisdiction. The court was for that reason needed to identify whether it had jurisdiction to approve the interdict.
The court evaluated the contract in between the supplier and the maker and highlighted the following:
- The supplier stopped working to develop that the contract was concluded in South Africa.
- The danger in the items offered by the maker passes from the maker to the supplier when the maker turn over the items to the provider at the Port of Shenzhen– appropriately, the maker’s shipment commitment is performed in China.
- When regard is needed to these shipment plans, the maker’s commitment not to offer its renewable resource items to 3rd parties who are understood by it to be dispersing those items on Takealot is sustained in China.
- The maker’s unfavorable commitment not to authorise 3rd parties to offer its renewable resource items on Takealot is sustained in China.
The maker’s only commitment in South Africa is to establish a regional service centre for after-sales service and repair work. The maker’s main commitments are for that reason carried out in China. Notably, the relief looked for by the supplier can not be implemented by a South African court due to the fact that the acts which are the topic of the interdict would all occur in China.
The application was struck from the roll due to the court’s absence of jurisdiction and the supplier was purchased to pay the maker’s expenses.