a tripartite report - Unctad

TANZANIA
Commission , it may be prudent that the
Commission should have the power to invoke a
compensatory order more so when dealing with
the weaker parties such as children, the elderly or
the illiterate.
The compensatory orders are made against the
person who committed the offence and any person
involved in the offence (i.e. ‘’respondents’’) as
the Commission considers appropriate to compensate
the applicant for the loss or damage suffered
by the applicant or to prevent or reduce
such loss or damage, including the orders below:
(a) an order requiring the respondents to pay
money;
(b) an order requiring the respondents to supply
(c) an order declaring void, terminating or
varying a contract;
(d) an order requiring the respondents to pay the
costs of the applicant or of a person appearing
at the hearing or producing documents.
According to Section 59(5) and (6) of the Act, any
person against whom a compensatory order is
made commits an offence if that person fails to
comply with the order. Any person who suffers loss
or damage as a result of breach of a condition or
warranty implied under Part VI or a manufacturer’s
obligation under Part VII may seek a relief in a
Court of competent jurisdiction but shall not seek,
and the Commission shall not grant, a compensatory
order under this section. Orders of the Commission
under this section shall be enforceable as
orders of the High Court 70 .
2.5.3 Fines to corporate bodies
Under section 60(1) of the Act, the Commission
to a compliance and/or a compensatory order
a compliance or compensatory order). The mini-
cent of annual turnover of the enterprise in the
United Republic of Tanzania. It appears that the
may be too high in cases where the anticompetitive
conduct only concerns a part of a company’s
business activities, e.g. if only one product out of
61
a large portfolio is concerned. It is therefore suggested
to recommend deleting the minimum
The Commission has not been shy to use this
power before. In Case 2 of 2009, the Commission
ordered Tanzanian Breweries Limited to pay 5 per
power. The Commission ruled thus:
That pursuant to Sections 60 (1) and 78(1)(f) of the
Fair Competition Act, 2003, and Rule 41 of the Fair
Competition Procedure Rules, 2009,Tanzania Brew-
71
of its turnover for the year of their latest audited
accounts for the offences of entering into anticompetitive
branding agreements with outlet owners and
removing Serengeti Breweries Limited posters and
signage.
Fines have also been meted out against the Tanzanian
Cigarette Company Limited, which acquired
a competitor without prior authorization by the
imposed on East African Breweries Limited for of-
the authorization of the Commission.
The Commission has otherwise been generally
known by the public for imposing and collecting
-
appear to be focused on suspected imported
counterfeit products, while locally produced products
are not consistently targeted.
The offences under the Act for breaching the law
are aimed at having a deterrent effect. Where a
person commits an offence against the Act (other
than under Part VI, Part VII or sections 58, 59 or 88
of the FCA) or is involved in such an offence, the
not exceeding ten percent of his annual turnover.
a monetary value can reasonably be placed on
the damage including loss of income suffered by
a person as a result of an offence against this Act,
the convicted person shall, in addition to any other
penalty which may be imposed, be liable to a
Commission shall order to be paid to the person
suffering the damage 72 .
TANZANIA