4 Judgment No. SC 52/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 560/17 words “or other person”. According to this interpretation, the words “or other person” would refer to a person who shared qualities similar to those falling within the classes of the persons referred to in the definition of “merger”. The court a quo held that the conglomerate formed by the appellants was a merger in terms of s 2 of the Act. That meant that it was notifiable to the respondent. The appellants appealed against the decision of the court a quo on the following grounds: "1. The court a quo erred in law and misdirected itself by holding that the term ‘or other person’ in the definition of a ‘merger’ when used in its ordinary grammatical meaning includes any other person not specified in that definition who acquires a controlling interest in the business of another. 2. The court a quo erred in law and misdirected itself in holding that the effect of the use of the term ‘or other person’ in the definition of a merger is to extend the definition of a merger to other classes of persons not previously specifically mentioned. 3. The court a quo erred in law and misdirected itself by holding that the term ‘or other person’ in the definition of merger ought to be interpreted broadly. 4. The court a quo erred in law and misdirected itself in holding that the term ‘or other person’ in the definition of merger ought not to be interpreted eiusdem generis and noscitur a sociis. 5. The court a quo erred in law and misdirected itself in holding that the application of the eiusdem generis rule would render the term ‘or other person’ meaningless or result in an absurdity. 6. The court a quo erred in law and misdirected itself in holding that the transaction between the appellants, commonly known as conglomerate merger, was a merger as envisaged by section 2 of the Competition Act.” The issue for determination was whether or not the court a quo was correct in its interpretation of the definition of “merger” in s 2 of the Act to include a conglomerate. The