5 Judgment No. SC 52/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 560/17 Court held that the court a quo adopted the correct interpretation of s 2 of the Act. The following are the reasons for the decision. The appellants’ argument Mr Hashiti had submitted that a conglomerate did not fall within the definition of a merger in s 2 of the Act. He had argued that in interpreting the words “or other person”, the eiusdem generis rule ought to have been applied by the court a quo. His argument was basically that the words “or other person” could not be interpreted widely to mean persons outside the class of those mentioned specifically in the definition. He contended that the words “or other person” were intended to extend the definition to cover “persons” in business relationships at the time they merged. Mr Hashiti further submitted that the Legislature’s insertion of the words “or other person” in the definition of merger in s 2 of the Act was not intended to include a conglomerate or any mergers other than those formed between persons who were in some form of a business relationship. The basis of his argument was that had it been the Legislature’s intention to include conglomerates and other unforeseen mergers in the definition, it would have simply defined a merger as the “acquiring of a controlling interest” without specifically mentioning the categories of customer, competitor and supplier. Whether or not a conglomerate is included in the definition of merger in terms of section 2 of the Act Competition in any marketplace for the production or supply of goods or services is necessary for achieving economic growth and development. Competition policy is formulated to encourage, improve and protect the competition process for the benefit of consumers through