11 Judgment No. SC 52/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 560/17 The eiusdem generis rule is not a rule of general application to be applied every time general words follow particular words. The rule would be applicable where a general expression follows a list of items that form a genus. The categories of “customer, supplier and competitor” do not constitute a list of items that form a genus. In S v Makandigona 1981 (4) SA 439 (ZAD) at 443H-444A the court reiterated that: “It must be remembered that the eiusdem generis rule is only one of many rules of construction; it is not to be invoked automatically whenever general words follow particular words. Thus Craies on Statute Law 7 ed says at 181: ‘The eiusdem generis rule is one to be applied with caution and not pushed too far, as in the case of many decisions, which treat it as automatically applicable, and not as being what it is, a mere presumption, in the absence of other indications of the intention of the legislature.’” At p 601 of the article referred to above, Nzero makes the observation that the application of the eiusdem generis rule to the words “or other person” would be a misinterpretation of the provisions of s 2 of the Act. He criticised the legal opinion that suggested that the application of the eiusdem generis rule in the interpretation of s 2 of the Act was appropriate. He stated: “It is submitted that the application of the rule (eiusdem generis) in determining the meaning of the phrase ‘or other person’ as used in the statutory definition of a merger results in absurdity, as it would mean that only economic activities having an effect on the economy of Zimbabwe in the same class as competitor, supplier and customer would constitute a merger whereas other economic activities with similar effect on the economy of Zimbabwe, but which are not in the same genus or class as ‘competitor, supplier, customer’, would not constitute a merger. It is submitted that there is enough ammunition provided in the statute to determine the extent to which the legislature intended the statute to apply in general and the types of mergers covered in particular. As such, the application of the eiusdem generis rule was not necessary as it had the effect of creating an artificial gap in the statutory merger definition. The rule should not be applied as a general rule of application, but rather cautiously to avoid misinterpretation of statutory provisions. In particular, in constructing the meaning of ‘or other person’ used in section 2, it must be remembered that the eiusdem generis rule is only one of many rules of construction; it is not to be invoked automatically whenever general words follow particular words.”