Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Community Property Company (Pty) Ltd v Eyethu Orange Farm Mall (LM267Jan18) [2018] ZACT 20; [2018] 1 CPLR 250 (CT) (9 March 2018)

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 does not result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition in any relevant market, as there is no geographic overlap between the acquiring firm's existing properties and the target property. The nearest comparable centre owned by the acquiring firm is approximately 46km away, which is insufficient to impose a competitive constraint. Furthermore, the transaction does not raise any adverse public interest concerns, as employees will be transferred in accordance with the Labour Relations Act and no negative impact on employment is anticipated. Accordingly, the merger was unconditionally approved.

Court disposition

Merger unconditionally approved.

Orders

  • The large merger between Community Property Company (Pty) Ltd and Eyethu Orange Farm Mall is unconditionally approved.
  • No conditions are imposed on the approval of the merger.

02

Material facts

Parties

Community Property Company (Pty) Ltd

Applicant Counsel: J van Dijk

Eyethu Orange Farm Mall

Respondent

Competition Commission

Respondent Counsel: N Msiza

Amounts and remedies

  • Target Property Size (m2): 26,818

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Large Merger Review / Approval

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that the acquisition would not negatively impact competition due to the absence of geographic overlap between its existing properties and the target property. It further submitted that there would be no negative effect on employment, as employees of the target property would be transferred to the acquiring firm in accordance with section 197 of the Labour Relations Act.
Respondent
The Competition Commission concurred with the applicant, finding no substantial prevention or lessening of competition due to the lack of geographic overlap. The Commission also concluded that there would be no adverse impact on employment or other public interest considerations.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act 89 of 1998

    A merger will not be prohibited if it is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market.

  2. 02

    Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, section 197

    Employees affected by a transfer of business as a going concern must be transferred on terms no less favourable than those applicable prior to the transfer.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the proposed transaction does not result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition in any relevant market, as there is no geographic overlap between the acquiring firm's existing properties and the target property. The nearest comparable centre owned by the acquiring firm is approximately 46km away, which is insufficient to impose a competitive constraint. Furthermore, the transaction does not raise any adverse public interest concerns, as employees will be transferred in accordance with the Labour Relations Act and no negative impact on employment is anticipated. Accordingly, the merger was unconditionally approved.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that the retention of a 10% stake by the Orange Farm Community Trust ensures joint control and sufficient minority protection for the community.
  • The approval of the merger supports the development of retail infrastructure in underserviced communities without compromising competition or employment.

Court disposition

Merger unconditionally approved.

  • The large merger between Community Property Company (Pty) Ltd and Eyethu Orange Farm Mall is unconditionally approved.
  • No conditions are imposed on the approval of the merger.

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

[2018] ZACT 20

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No:LM267Jan18

In the matter between

Community Property Company (Pty) Ltd

Primary Acquiring Firm

And

Eyethu Orange Farm Mall

Primary Target Firm

Panel

: Norman Manoim (Presiding Member)

: Enver Daniels (Tribunal Member)

: Prof. lmraan Valodia (Tribunal Member)

Heard on

: 16 February 2018

Order Issued on : 16 February 2018

Reasons Issued on : 9 March 2018

REASONS

FOR DECISION

Approval

[1] On 16 February 2018, the Tribunal unconditionally approved the large merger in terms of which the Community Property Company (Pty) Ltd ("CPC") is acquiring a 90% interest and joint control of a community shopping centre known as the Eyethu Orange Farm Mall ("target property").

[2] The reasons for approval follow.

Parties to the transaction

Primary Acquiring Firm

[3] CPC is a property holding and investment company that primarily specialises in the acquisition of new and existing shopping centres which cater to the needs of underserviced communities throughout South Africa. CPC is wholly-owned by Community Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd ("CPH"), which is in turn ultimately controlled by Old Mutual Group Holdings (SA) (Pty) Ltd ("OMSA"). CPC and its controllers are collectively referred to as the Acquiring group.

[4] The Acquiring group owns a number of retail letting properties throughout South Africa. Relevant to this transaction are its properties situated in the Gauteng province.

Primary Target Firm

[5] The target property is a 26818m2 regional shopping centre that comprises of retail letting and storage space. It is situated in Orange Farm, Johannesburg (Gauteng).

[6] The target property is jointly owned and controlled by four entities (two private companies and two trusts),[1] three of which are selling their undivided share in the target property. They will be collectively referred to as "the sellers".

Proposed transaction and rationale

[7] In terms of the Sale Agreements, CPC will acquire each of the sellers' undivided shareholding (accounting for 90% of the issued share capital) in the target property. Post-merger, CPC will jointly own and control the target property with the remaining shareholder the Orange Farm Community Trust which retains a 10% stake and enjoys sufficient minority protection for the merging parties to describe this as joint control.[2]

Relevant market and impact on competition

[8] The Commission considered the activities of the merging parties and found a horizontal overlap in the product market for the provision of rentable retail space in comparative centres. The horizontal overlap arises as a result of CPC owning a number of comparative centres in Gauteng, which include the Gateway Mall in Carltonville, Heidelberg Mall in Heidelberg, and Cradock Square in Rosebank.

[9] The Commission found that there is no geographic overlap between the activities of the merging parties as CPC's nearest comparative centre in Gauteng is located approximately 46km from the target property and thus is unlikely to impose a competitive constraint on it.

[10] Due to the lack of geographic overlap, the Commission concluded that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any market. We found no reason to disagree with the Commission.

Public interest

[11] The merging parties submitted that the proposed transaction will not have a negative impact on jobs as the target property's employees will be transferred to CPC as contemplated in section 197 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. The Commission concluded that the proposed transaction will not negatively affect employment. We agreed with the Commission's

findings.

Conclusion

[12] In light of the above, we concluded that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market. In addition, no adverse public interest issues arise from the proposed transaction. Accordingly, we unconditionally

approved the proposed transaction.

Mr Norman Manoim.

Mr Enver Daniels and Prof. lmraan Valodia concurring.

9 March 2018 Date

Tribunal Case Manager : Kgothatso Kgobe

For the Merging Parties : J van Dijk of Norton Rose Fulbright

For the Commission : N Msiza

[1] Flanagan and Gerard Investments; Mergence Africa Property Investments Trust; Stretford Land Development (Pty) Ltd; and Orange

Farm Community Trust.

[2] See Paragraph 4.1(5) of the Merging Parties Competitiveness report, Record page 33.

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 89 of 1998

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995

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.