Botash court appeal to wait again

WANETSHA MOSINYI
Correspondent | Thursday March 15, 2007 00:00

The Competition Appeal Court (CAC) will on April 23 hear an application for leave to appeal by ANSAC to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). In an interview last week, Botash managing director, Derek Cochrane, said the appeals ANSAC keeps on lodging are just delaying tactics as the case has been dragging for nearly seven years without any meaningful progress.  The latest appeal emanates from the Competition Tribunal dismissal in September 2006 in which ANSAC had lodged an application to have Botash and its legal team, inclusive of economists, removed from the matter.

In January this year, ANSAC appealed to the Competition Appeal Court (CAC) but the CAC confirmed the decision of the Tribunal.  According to the Competition Tribunal website, after the dismissal by the (CAC), ANSAC is said to have filed leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Cochrane said WWB, which represents ANSAC, has been trying to get ANSAC to agree to start actual hearing by Tribunal on the merits.  ANSAC is an association of American soda ash producers that competes in the domestic economy of the United States of America.

Botswana Ash (Botash) and Chemserve Technical Product Limited filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that ANSAC had contravened section 4(1)(b), in that ANSAC was fixing prices, trading conditions and dividing markets.  After its investigation, the Commission referred the matter to the Competition Tribunal, which on evidence found that ANSAC had violated section 4(1)(b) of the Act as alleged by the complainants.

The case dates back to October 1999 when Botash launched an application for interim relief in terms of section 59 of the Act against the respondents. ANSAC opposed the application and also launched its own application for interim relief against Botash. 

The proceedings in both applications became protracted because of several interlocutory issues that arose and by February 2000 neither had been heard.  The parties then met and came to an agreement on the future conduct of the litigation. On February 10, 2000 on application by the parties they entered upon an agreement and order of the Tribunal.  The case has been ongoing since then.