In Zimbabwe, competition law is focused on preventing abusive practices by dominant firms and

monopolies, aiming to encourage fair competition and consumer protection. Like South Africa,
Zimbabwe’s regulatory framework uses both statutory and case law to monitor and control anti-
competitive practices. The primary legislation governing competition in Zimbabwe is the Competition
Act [Chapter 14:28], which is complemented by other legal frameworks such as the Control of Goods Act
[Chapter 14:05]. These laws aim to foster competitive markets by regulating firm behavior that might
hinder competition, particularly in monopolistic or oligopolistic markets.

The Competition Act [Chapter 14:28]1

The Competition Act was enacted to establish guidelines against anti-competitive practices, regulate
mergers and acquisitions, and curb the abuse of dominance in the market. The Act grants the
Competition and Tariff Commission (CTC) the authority to monitor and enforce competition policies in
Zimbabwe. The Act also empowers the CTC to investigate alleged anti-competitive behaviors, control
monopolistic practices, and sanction firms that abuse their market position.

Establishing Dominance

A firm's dominance in the market under the Zimbabwean Competition Act is established based on its
market share, the extent of market power, and the degree of market entry barriers. Unlike South Africa,
where dominance is presumed based on specific market share thresholds, Zimbabwean law assesses
2
dominance through a contextual approach, considering factors like a firm's ability to set prices, control
supply, and exclude competitors from the market.

The Act broadly defines market power as the ability of a firm to act 3independently of competitors,
control prices, or limit the competitive choices available to consumers. This broad definition mirrors
South Africa’s criteria, yet Zimbabwe’s legal framework often requires detailed market analysis to
substantiate a claim of dominance, taking into account factors such as demand elasticity and market
entry barriers.

Abuse of Dominance Provisions

Section 28 of the Competition Act prohibits the abuse of dominance, which includes the following key
anti-competitive practices:

Excessive Pricing: 4The Act prevents dominant firms from charging excessively high prices to exploit
consumers and deter competitors. Excessive pricing is seen as exploitative and may reduce consumer
welfare by limiting access to affordable goods and services.

1
The Competition Act [Chapter 14:28]
2
Havenga, P. General Principle of Commercial Law, 5th Edition, 2004.

3
Lewis, D. Competition Rules in Zimbabwe: A Framework for a Growing Economy, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013

4
Elhauge, E. Defining Better Monopolization Standards, Stanford Law Review, 2003
Predatory Pricing: Dominant firms are 5restricted from engaging in predatory pricing, a tactic that
involves setting prices below cost to eliminate competition and create a monopoly. Predatory pricing
harms the market by forcing out smaller competitors who cannot afford to sustain such low prices.

Exclusive Dealing and Refusal to Supply: The Act restricts dominant firms from engaging in 6exclusive
deals that prevent other firms from accessing essential goods or services. Refusal to supply essential
facilities is also deemed anti-competitive, especially when such facilities are crucial for market entry.

Tying and Bundling: Firms are prohibited from forcing buyers to purchase unrelated products or services
as a condition for buying other goods. This practice limits consumer choice and hinders smaller
competitors who may lack a broad product portfolio.

Balancing Test and Burden of Proof

Similar to South African law, the Competition Act in Zimbabwe employs a balancing test for assessing
whether anti-competitive effects outweigh the potential technological, efficiency, or other pro-
competitive gains associated with certain conduct. 7In cases of alleged abuse, the burden of proof is on
the complainant to establish that the conduct harms competition. If the dominant firm claims pro-
competitive benefits, it must prove that these benefits exceed the potential anti-competitive effects.

Role of the Competition and Tariff Commission (CTC)

The Competition and Tariff Commission (CTC) serves as the primary regulatory and enforcement
authority under the Competition Act. Its mandate includes investigating cases of dominance abuse,
regulating mergers, and enforcing compliance with competition laws. The CTC 8 operates as an
autonomous entity, conducting investigations based on complaints or suo moto (on its own initiative). If
the CTC finds a firm guilty of anti-competitive behavior, it can impose fines, restrict the firm’s conduct,
or mandate other remedial measures.

Notable Case: CTC vs. Dairibord Zimbabwe Ltd

A landmark case illustrating the application of the Competition Act in Zimbabwe involved CTC vs.
Dairibord Zimbabwe Ltd. The CTC alleged that Dairibord had abused its dominant position in the dairy
market by engaging in predatory pricing and exclusive dealing practices. The Commission found that
Dairibord’s pricing strategy was intended to eliminate competitors and ordered the company to cease

5
Rousseva, P. Competition Policy: Theory and Practice, HSRC Press, 2006

6
Brassey, M. Competition Law, Juta, 2005.

7
CTC vs. Dairibord Zimbabwe Ltd, Competition and Tariff Commission Zimbabwe.

8
Control of Goods Act [Chapter 14:05]
such practices, imposing fines as a deterrent. This case highlights the CTC's commitment to ensuring fair
competition in essential markets like food and agriculture.

International Trade and the Control of Goods Act [Chapter 14:05]

In addition to the Competition Act, the Control of Goods Act empowers the Zimbabwean government to
regulate the import and export of goods, establish tariffs, and control prices for essential goods. This Act
complements competition law by ensuring that monopolistic practices do not restrict access to essential
goods and that local markets remain competitive and accessible. The International Trade and Tariff
Commission plays a crucial role in assessing tariffs and setting price controls in line with broader
economic goals[^11^].

Observations and Challenges

Market Concentration: The Zimbabwean economy is characterized by high market concentration in

sectors such as telecommunications, energy, and food production. These concentrated markets make it
challenging for the CTC to enforce competition laws without risking market stability.

Resource Constraints: The CTC often faces financial and logistical limitations that hinder its ability to
conduct thorough investigations and monitor compliance with the Act effectively.

Legal Framework Limitations: Although the Competition Act provides a framework for fair competition,
its lack of specific market share thresholds for dominance makes enforcement complex and sometimes
subjective.

Conclusion

Zimbabwe’s competition law framework, governed by the Competition Act [Chapter 14:28], shares
similarities with South Africa’s approach, including the prohibition of excessive pricing, predatory
pricing, and exclusive dealing. The Zimbabwean framework, however, is unique in its reliance on a
contextual assessment of market dominance and its comprehensive control over essential goods via the
Control of Goods Act. Together, these regulations aim to foster a competitive economy, protect
consumers, and deter monopolistic practices, even amidst challenges such as limited resources and high
market concentration.

References

Competition Act [Chapter 14:28]

Havenga, P. General Principle of Commercial Law, 5th Edition, 2004.

Lewis, D. Competition Rules in Zimbabwe: A Framework for a Growing Economy, Edward Elgar
Publishing, 2013.

Elhauge, E. Defining Better Monopolization Standards, Stanford Law Review, 2003.

Rousseva, P. Competition Policy: Theory and Practice, HSRC Press, 2006.

Brassey, M. Competition Law, Juta, 2005

Case: CTC vs. Dairibord Zimbabwe Ltd, Competition and Tariff Commission Zimbabwe.

Control of Goods Act [Chapter 14:05], Zimbabwe.