The challenges of anti-competitive practices and consumer protection in Nigeria

by | Oct 30, 2022 | JCCL, JCCL V7 I2

The challenges of anti-competitive practices and consumer protection in Nigeria

Authors: Eric Omo Enakireru & Ogaga Wilson Ekakitie

ISSN: 2521-2575
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer, Department of Jurisprudence and International Law, College of Law, Western Delta University, Oghara, Delta State, Nigeria; Senior Lecturer, Department of Jurisprudence and International Law, College of Law, Western Delta University, Oghara, Delta State, Nigeria
Source: Journal of Corporate and Commercial Law & Practice, Volume 7 Issue 2, 2021, p. 152 – 167
https://doi.org/10.47348/JCCL/V7/i2a8

Abstract

This article critically examines the concepts and the challenges of price mechanisms, anti-competitive practices and consumer protection in Nigeria, and considers ways of promoting and protecting the interests of consumers in respect of products and services. The article evaluates and defines the concept of price mechanisms, and the concept of the consumer who needs to be protected. It discusses anticompetitive practices, such as monopolies, mergers and acquisitions, and restrictive trade practices, resale price maintenance agreements, misleading advertising, false sales and market values. It considers the protection of consumers and the legal frameworks applicable to the subject. In conclusion, the article recommends appropriate measures and a proactive, pragmatic approach to tackling the menace of false market sales and restrictive trade practices by calling on stakeholders and the government to regulate monopolies, mergers and uncompetitive business practices which are detrimental to the interests of the consumer. It calls for controls and restrictions on unfair trade practices and appropriate sanctions so that those who persistently prejudice consumers in this way are brought to book.

An assessment of the success of the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 as an instrument of transnational commercial dispute resolution

by | Oct 30, 2022 | JCCL, JCCL V7 I2

An assessment of the success of the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 as an instrument of transnational commercial dispute resolution

Author: Samuel Maireg Biresaw

ISSN: 2521-2575
Affiliations: Lecturer, School of Law, Debre Tabor University
Source: Journal of Corporate and Commercial Law & Practice, Volume 7 Issue 2, 2021, p. 168 – 198
https://doi.org/10.47348/JCCL/V7/i2a9

Abstract

The Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (Convention), which was developed by the Hague Convention on Private International Law (HCCH) is a transnational litigation instrument adopted in 2005 and brought into force in 2015. By providing the required methods and tools to disputants in a commercial relationship, the objective of the Convention is to create an internationally uniform legal framework of dispute resolution that promotes cross-border trade and encourages judicial cooperation by recognising and enforcing foreign judgments that are given based on a choice of court agreement. This article assesses the existing successes of the Convention in achieving its specific commercial objectives, and considers whether it has been generally successful in transnational commercial dispute resolution. The article argues that the Convention has the tools needed to achieve its specific commercial objectives, and its success in this regard depends on the parties who choose to apply the tools provided in the Convention to resolve their commercial disputes by signing a choice of court agreement to that effect. I argue that although the Convention remained generally unsuccessful until 2015, due to its late enforcement and low rate of ratifications, since 2015 it has gradually become a success story as more states are ratifying the Convention. The future therefore looks bright.

Case Notes: Barnard Labuschagne Incorporated v South African Revenue Service [2022] ZACC 8 (11 March 2022) – The rescindability of a certified statement filed in terms of section 172 of the Tax Administration Act

by | Oct 30, 2022 | JCCL, JCCL V7 I2

Case Notes: Barnard Labuschagne Incorporated v South African Revenue Service [2022] ZACC 8 (11 March 2022) – The rescindability of a certified statement filed in terms of section 172 of the Tax Administration Act

Author: Arthur van Coller

ISSN: 2521-2575
Affiliations: Associate Professor – Nelson R Mandela School of Law, University of Fort Hare
Source: Journal of Corporate and Commercial Law & Practice, Volume 7 Issue 2, 2021, p. 199 – 216
https://doi.org/10.47348/JCCL/V7/i2a10

Abstract

None

Case Notes: Complaint initiations and prescription provisions in the Competition Act – The Constitutional Court provides clarity in Competition Commission v Pickfords Removals

by | Oct 30, 2022 | JCCL, JCCL V7 I2

Case Notes: Complaint initiations and prescription provisions in the Competition Act – The Constitutional Court provides clarity in Competition Commission v Pickfords Removals

Author: Precious Nonhlanhla Ndlovu

ISSN: 2521-2575
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape
Source: Journal of Corporate and Commercial Law & Practice, Volume 7 Issue 2, 2021, p. 217 – 233
https://doi.org/10.47348/JCCL/V7/i2a11

Abstract

None

Business judgment rule to directors against personal liability for breaches of some of their duties

by | May 22, 2022 | JCCL, JCCL V7 I1

Business judgment rule to directors against personal liability for breaches of some of their duties

Author: Xolisa Beja

ISSN: 2521-2575
Affiliations: LLM candidate, University of Witwatersrand
Source: Journal of Corporate and Commercial Law & Practice, Volume 7 Issue 1, 2021, p. 1 – 35
https://doi.org/10.47348/JCCL/V7/i1a1

Abstract

This article examines the extent to which s 76(4)(a) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 protects directors against personal liability for breaches of their duties to act in the company’s best interests, with due care, skill and diligence. The essential substantive elements of s 76(4)(a) create (as a minimum) a business judgment rule. Generally, that rule provides a director with a defence against liability for a breach of his duty of care, skill and diligence if, when he acted (or omitted to act), he did so reasonably, honestly, with no self-interest and in the interests of the company. In analysing s 76(4)(a) as an embodiment of features of a traditional business judgment rule, this article briefly discusses how a similar rule in Australia is drafted and applied in practice by their courts. The article concludes that s 76(4) (a) creates protection for directors that is more than the protection that is provided by a traditional business judgment rule. This conclusion is based on the extensive nature and scope of authority and powers which s 66(1) of the Act grants to directors. In the same breath, however, s 76(4)(a) manages to make directors appropriately accountable to the company’s stakeholders, in keeping with some of the fundamental objectives and purposes of the Act.

Guarding against retirement funds’ arbitrary discretion when allocating death benefits: The urgent need for statutory guidelines

by | May 22, 2022 | JCCL, JCCL V7 I1

Guarding against retirement funds’ arbitrary discretion when allocating death benefits: The urgent need for statutory guidelines

Author: Motseotsile Clement Marumoagae

ISSN: 2521-2575
Affiliations: Associate Professor, School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand and Visiting Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Lesotho
Source: Journal of Corporate and Commercial Law & Practice, Volume 7 Issue 1, 2021, p. 36 – 62
https://doi.org/10.47348/JCCL/V7/i1a2

Abstract

This article discusses the enormous power enjoyed by retirement funds’ boards to implement or reject deceased members’ clearly expressed wishes in their nomination forms or wills when distributing their death benefits. It demonstrates that boards are vested with wide discretion to apportion death benefits which, at times, is difficult to justify. Further, this leads boards to make incorrect allocations of death benefits by paying some beneficiaries less than others, completely excluding some from the distribution or allocating the entire benefit to one beneficiary. It argues that apart from requiring boards to honestly, rationally and reasonably allocate death benefits in line with the material facts placed before them, there is a need for legislative guidance that can effectively guide discretion exercised by boards of retirement funds when allocating death benefits.