13 Judgment No. SC 52/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 560/17 suppliers or customers, just like horizontal and vertical mergers, affect competition. All mergers have the capacity to undermine competition. The contention by the appellants was that if the Legislature had intended to cover all types of mergers because of their potential negative effects on competition it would have said so without specifying the categories of customer, supplier and competitor. The Legislature has a discretion on how it chooses to express its intention in the enactment of laws. The question of whether the intention behind a statutory provision is inelegantly expressed should not concern a court. The duty of a court is to ascertain the intention of the Legislature however it is expressed. In Van Heerden v Queen’s Hotel (Pty) Ltd 1973 (2) SA 14 (RAD), 21, the court explained that: “In interpreting statutes, courts are not concerned with the elegance of the language used. Statutory instruments are not usually remarkable for the elegance of their language. The court must interpret the words in a statutory instrument so as to give effect to the true intention of the legislature, and once that intention is clear, the fact that the language used in expressing it may not be as elegant as some would like, is not a matter of consequence, especially if the language is grammatical and easily understood.” Disposition It was for these reasons that the Court was satisfied that the concession by counsel for the appellant that the appeal lacked merit was well-founded and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal with costs. HLATSHWAYO JA: I agree