Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

AFHCO Proprietary Limited v 120 End Street Property Investments Proprietary Limited (018820) [2014] ZACT 93 (16 July 2014)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that the proposed transaction would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in any of the identified markets. The merged entity's market shares in residential, retail, office, and industrial property markets within the Johannesburg CBD and surrounding nodes were found to be low, with sufficient competition remaining from other property owners. No public interest concerns were identified, and the transaction would facilitate the implementation of a prior approved transaction. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The acquisition by AFHCO Proprietary Limited of the remaining 50% shareholding in 120 End Street Property Investments Proprietary Limited is approved unconditionally.

02

Material facts

Parties

AFHCO Proprietary Limited

Applicant Counsel: Susan Meyer

120 End Street Property Investments Proprietary Limited

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Merged Entity Market Share in Retail Rentable Convenience Centres (johannesburg Cbd) Post Merger: ZAR 14.65
  • Market Accretion in Retail Rentable Convenience Centres (johannesburg Cbd): ZAR 2.46
  • Merged Entity Market Share in Grade C Office Space (johannesburg Cbd) Post Merger: ZAR 1.11
  • Market Accretion in Grade C Office Space (johannesburg Cbd): ZAR 0.82

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Approval / Final Determination

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
AFHCO argued that the acquisition would not result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition in any relevant market. The merging parties would continue to face significant competition from other property owners in the Johannesburg CBD and surrounding areas. The transaction would also facilitate the implementation of the SA Retail/AFHCO transaction, allowing SACREF to obtain full ownership of End Street Investments.
Respondent
The Commission submitted that, although there are horizontal overlaps in rentable residential, retail, office, and industrial property markets, the merged entity's market shares post-merger remain low and do not raise competition concerns. The merged entity will continue to face competition from numerous other firms, and no public interest issues were identified.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998

    A merger may only be prohibited if it is likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market.

  2. 02

    Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998

    Public interest considerations must be assessed in merger proceedings, including the effect on employment and the ability of small businesses to compete.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the proposed transaction would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in any of the identified markets. The merged entity's market shares in residential, retail, office, and industrial property markets within the Johannesburg CBD and surrounding nodes were found to be low, with sufficient competition remaining from other property owners. No public interest concerns were identified, and the transaction would facilitate the implementation of a prior approved transaction. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that the lack of significant market share accretion in the relevant markets was a key factor in its decision.
  • The Tribunal observed that the transaction would not alter the structure of the industrial property market, as only one property was jointly owned by the merging parties.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

  • The acquisition by AFHCO Proprietary Limited of the remaining 50% shareholding in 120 End Street Property Investments Proprietary Limited is approved unconditionally.

Source and reliance status

Competition Tribunal

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Competition Tribunal

Judgment

[2014] ZACT 93

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: 018820

In the matter between;

AFHCO

PROPRIETARY LIMITED..................................................................Primary Acquiring Firm

And

120 END STREET

PROPERTY INVESTMENTS

PROPRIETARY LIMITED........................................................................................Primary Target Firm

Panel: Anton Roskam (Presiding Member)

: Prof Imraan Valodia (Tribunal Member)

: Prof Fiona Tregenna (Tribunal Member)

Heard on: 18 June 2014

Order Issued on: 18 June 2014

Reasons Issued on : 16 July 2014

Reasons for Decision

Approval

[1] On 18 June 2014, The Competition Tribunal unconditionally approved the acquisition by AFHCO (Pty) Ltd of the remaining 50% shareholding in 120 End Street Proprietary Investments (Pty) Ltd from Amdec Investments (Pty) Ltd (“AMDEC”).

[2] The reasons for approving the proposed transaction follow.

Parties to transaction

Primary acquiring firm

[3] The primary acquiring firm is AFHCO (Pty) Ltd (“AFHCO”).

AFHCO is a wholly owned subsidiary of AFHCO Holdings (Pty) Ltd (“AFHCO Holdings”). AFHCO Holdings is jointly controlled by the following shareholders:

• Old Mutual Life Assurance Company (SA) Limited (“OMLACSA”);

• Mr. Wayne Plit;

• Mrs. Renney Plit.1

[4] The shareholders of AFHCO Holdings sold their 50% interest in AFHCO Holdings to SA Retail (Pty) Ltd (“SA Retail”). This acquisition was assessed by the Commission and approved by the Competition Tribunal on 18 June 2014 under Tribunal Case Number

018762. In terms of this transaction AFHCO Holdings is now wholly owned by SA Retail. This transaction is hereinafter referred to as the “SA Retail I AFHCO transaction”.

[5] OMLACSA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Old Mutual Emerging Markets Limited (“OMEM”), which is wholly owned by Old Mutual (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd (“OMSA”).

OMSA is wholly owned by Old Mutual Netherlands B.V. (“OM Netherlands”). OM Netherlands is a wholly owned subsidiary of OM Group (UK) Limited (“OM UK”). OM UK is a wholly owned subsidiary of Old Mutual Pic.

[6] AFHCO Holdings holds a 100% interest in the Urban Housing Finance (Pty) Ltd and Protea Glen Housing (Pty) Ltd. AFCHO holds a 50% interest in 120 West End Street Property Investments (Pty) Ltd (“120 End Street Investments”) and controls the following firms:

Serfo Investments (Pty) Ltd;

Ocwen Investment 57 (Pty) Ltd;

Only The Best Properties 223 (Pty) Ltd;

Anchor Towers Property Inv. (Pty) Ltd;

Rainbow Place Properties 80 (Pty) Ltd;

Morulat Property Investmenst (Pty) Ltd;

Blazing Fortune Properties 9 (Pty) Ltd;

Dust Gold Investments 3 (Pty) Ltd;

Elite Star Properties 3 (Pty) Ltd;

Rapiprop 101 (Pty) Ltd;

Seimwright Corner Properties (Pty) Ltd.

Note: Hereinafter, reference to the “Acquiring Group” bears reference to all of the above listed firms except for OMLACSA.2

Primary target firm

[7] The primary target firm is 120 End Street Investments which is jointly controlled in equal shares by AFHCO and Amdec. Amdec is jointly controlled by the Baker Family Trust and the Rowe Family Trust. Trustees of the Baker Family Trust are:

James Alexander Wilson;

Deborah Anne Wilson; and ;

John Stuart Wilson.

Trustees of the Rowe Family Trust are:

John Stuart Wilson; Astra Margaret Wilson; and James Alexander Wilson.

Proposed Transaction and Rationale

[8] In terms of the Sale of Shares and Claims Agreement, AFCHO is acquiring the remaining 50% of the shares and claims in 120 End Street Investments from Amdec. Upon the acquisition of the remaining 50% shareholding, AFHCO will gain sole control of 120 End Street Investments.

[9] The rationale for this transaction is for the Acquiring Group and Amdec to give effect to the SA Retail/AFHCO transaction (“SACREF”).

SACREF expressed an interest in acquiring the remaining 50% issued share capital in End Street and this provided an opportunity for Amdec to sell its interest to AFHCO and in turn enable SACREF to obtain a wholly owned interest in End Street through its proposed acquisition of AFCHO Holdings.

Relevant Market and Impact on Competition

[10] The Acquiring Group comprises of property investment companies that own office, residential, retail and light industrial properties while 120 End Street is a property investment firm with a portfolio comprising of 11 immovable properties classified as residential, office and retail. An assessment of the property portfolio of the Acquiring Group and that of the target firm revealed a horizontal overlap in respect of:

rentable residential space within the Johannesburg CBD;

rentable retail space in convenience centres within a 6km radius from the Johannesburg CBD;

Grade C office space within the Johannesburg CBD node; and

light industrial space within the South West Industrial node.

Rentable Residential Space

[11] The Acquiring Group has a property portfolio in excess of 20 rentable residential spaces within the Johannesburg CBD. With respect to the market for the provision of rental space in residential property, the Commission could not find data to determine the estimated market shares of the merging parties. However, the Commission submitted that the merging parties will continue to face competition from 30 firms which currently own residential properties within the Johannesburg CBD.

Retail Rentable Convenience Centres

[12] A horizontal overlap was identified in the Johannesburg CBD in that the 120 End Street Investments retail properties are located within this node and within a narrow 6km radius of the Johannesburg CBD. The merged entities market share in the Johannesburg CBD, based on a GLA estimate, is 14.65% post-merger, with a 2.46% market accretion. It is noted that within the same geographic market the merged entity will continue to face competition from retail centres which have a combined market share of 86.45%.

Rentable Grade C Office Space

[13] Overlaps were identified in the Johannesburg CBD node as 120 End Street Investments has two properties located in the Johannesburg CBD. Therefore only properties within the Acquiring Group which are located within the Johannesburg CBD were considered for purposes of this assessment.

[14] The Acquiring Group’s market shares based on a GLA estimate is 1.11% post merger with a 0.82% accretion, which is deemed too minimal to raise competition concerns.

Provision of rentals in industrial property

[15] AFHCO and 120 End Street Investments jointly own an industrial property within the South West industrial node. This is the only such property within their respective portfolios and thus this transaction does not result in an accretion of market share nor does it alter the structure of the market.

Conclusion

[16] In light of the above we conclude that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in the identified markets. In addition, no public interest issues arise from the proposed transaction. Accordingly we approve the proposed transaction unconditionally.

18 July 2014

DATE

Prof Imraan Valodia

Anton Roskam and Prof Fiona Tregenna concurring

Tribunal Researcher: Derrick Bowles

For the merging parties: Susan Meyer - Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr

For the Commission: Dineo Mashego, Xolela Nokeie and Seema Nunkoo

1Mr. Wayne Plit and Mrs. Renney Plit do not control any other firms.

2This is because OMLACSA sold its selling interest in AFHCO Holdings to SA Retail.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.