Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Bongicel (Pty) Ltd v Lusitania Pty Ltd (LM224Jan16) [2016] ZACT 22 (23 March 2016)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that there was no overlap between the activities of Bongicel and Lusitania, as the Royal Bafokeng Trust did not own interests in firms competing with Lusitania in the distribution of frozen or chilled food products. The Commission's investigation confirmed that the transaction would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in any market. Furthermore, the merging parties assured that there would be no adverse effect on employment and no retrenchments. The Tribunal agreed with the Commission's findings and concluded that the transaction raised no significant public interest concerns. Accordingly, the merger was approved unconditionally.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The proposed transaction is approved unconditionally.

02

Material facts

Parties

Bongicel (Pty) Ltd

Applicant Counsel: Mark Thomas

Lusitania Pty Ltd

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Approval / Final Determination

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Bongicel, controlled by the Royal Bafokeng Nation Development Trust, argued that the acquisition would create employment and skills development opportunities for the Bafokeng people in the agricultural sector. The transaction was positioned as beneficial to the community and not detrimental to competition.
Respondent
The Kempston Group, owner of Lusitania, submitted that the sale was motivated by a desire to refocus on its core business areas of transport, logistics, and rentals. The respondent confirmed that the transaction would not result in any retrenchments or adverse employment effects.

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 market.

  2. 02

    Competition Act, No. 89 of 1998

    Public interest considerations, including effects on employment, must be assessed in merger proceedings.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that there was no overlap between the activities of Bongicel and Lusitania, as the Royal Bafokeng Trust did not own interests in firms competing with Lusitania in the distribution of frozen or chilled food products. The Commission's investigation confirmed that the transaction would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in any market. Furthermore, the merging parties assured that there would be no adverse effect on employment and no retrenchments. The Tribunal agreed with the Commission's findings and concluded that the transaction raised no significant public interest concerns. Accordingly, the merger was approved unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted the potential for employment and skills development opportunities for the Bafokeng people as a positive outcome of the transaction.
  • The Tribunal acknowledged the merging parties' commitment to maintaining employment levels post-merger.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

  • The proposed transaction 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

[2016] ZACT 22

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: LM224Jan16

In the matter between:

Bongicel (Pty) Ltd

Acquiring Firm

and

Lusitania Pty Ltd

Target Firm

Panel

: Yasmin Carrim (Presiding Member)

Medi Mokuena Fiona (Tribunal Member)

Tregenna (Tribunal-Member)

Heard on

: 10 February 2016

Order issued on

:10 February 2016

Reasons issued on : 23 March 2016

Reasons for Decision

Approval

1. On 10 February 2016 the Competition Tribunal {the "Tribunal") unconditionally approved an acquisition by Bongicel (Pty) Ltd ("Bongicel"), of Lusitania (Pty) Ltd ("Lusitania'}

2. The reasons for the approval of the proposed transaction follow.

The Parties and their activities

3. The primary acquiring firm is Bongicel, a newly incorporated special purpose vehicle company, established for the purpose of the proposed transaction. Bongicel is controlled by Moumo Integrated Development (Pty) Ltd ("Moumo"), which is in turn ultimately controlled by the Royal Bafokeng Nation Deveiopment Trust ("the Royal Bafokeng Trust"), a trust registered in accordance with the laws of South Africa. The Royal Bafokeng Trust has in excess of 40 subsidiaries. Bongicel does not control any firm.

4. Bongicel is incorporated for the purposes of the proposed transaction and does not have any activities. The Royal Bafokeng Trust is an investment holding trust and its subsidiaries are involved in services for the mining, oil and gas, resources, construction,

property, telecommunications, transport, aviation, energy, shipping and courier and financial services sectors.

5. The primary target firm is Lusitania, a company registered in accordance with the laws of the Republic of South AfFisa. Lusitania

is wholly-owned by the Pocot Trust ("Pocot Trust"). Lusitania and the Pocot Trust form part of the Kempston Group of

Companies ("Kempston Group"). The Kempston Trust has in excess of 40 subsidiaries.

6. Lusitania is involved in the wholesale distribution of frozen and/or chilled prepared branded meat products, seafood, vegetables, dairy goods, desserts, pastries and cakes to the hospitaJity industry- including hotels, restaurants and caterers.

Proposed transaction and rationale

7. In terms of the proposed transaction, Bongicel intends to acquire as a going concern, the entire business of Lusitania comprising of the entire fixed assets, stock, goodwill, trade names, trademarks and operations, specifically excluding the book debts and employee liabilities. On completion, Bongicel will have sole control over tusitania.

8. According to the Royal Bafokeng Trust the proposed transaction will inter alia create employment and skills development opportunities for the Bafokeng people in the agricultural sector.

9. The Kempston Group submitted that it wants to sell Lusitania so that it can return its focus to its core areas of expertise, i.e. transport, logistics and reritals.

Competition Analysis

10. The Commission found that there is no overlap between the activities of the merging parties as the Royal Bafokeng Trust does not currently own investments or interests in firms involved in tile distribution of frozen and/or chilled food related products in competition with Lusitania.

11. The Commission therefore concluded that the proposed transaction 1s unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any market.

Public interest

12. The merging parties confirmed that the proposed transaction will have no adverse effect on employment and will not result in any retrenchments in South Africa. The proposed transaction raises no other public interest concerns.

Conclusion

13. In light of the above, we agree with the Commission that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen

competition in any market. Further, we agree with the Commission that proposed transaction is unlikely to resuIt in significant public interest concerns. We therefore approve the proposed transaction unconditionally.

23 March 2016

Date

_______

Ms Yasmin Carrim

Ms Medi Mokuena and Professor Fiona Tregenna concurring

Tribunal Researcher : lpeleng Selaledi

For the merging parties : Mark Thomas of Tabacks Attorneys

For the Commission: Maanda Lambani

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.