Download PDF

South Africa Order

Competition Tribunal

Community Property Company (Pty) Ltd v Ulundi King Senzangakona currently owned by Vukile Property Fund Limited (LM026May21) [2021] ZACT 30 (23 June 2021)

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 merger between Community Property Company (Pty) Ltd and the letting enterprise known as Ulundi King Senzangakona Shopping Centre, owned by Vukile Property Fund Limited, would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market. This conclusion was based on the absence of geographic overlap between the properties of the merging parties and the lack of any change to the market structure for comparable rentable shopping centres in Ulundi. The Tribunal also considered public interest factors, noting that employees were informed and raised no concerns, and that the transaction would not result in retrenchments or job losses. Accordingly, the merger was approved unconditionally.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The merger between the abovementioned parties is approved in terms of section 16(2)(a) of the Competition Act, 1998.
  • A Merger Clearance Certificate is to be issued in terms of Competition Tribunal Rule 35(5)(a).

02

Material facts

Parties

Community Property Company (Pty) Ltd

Applicant Counsel: Albert Aukema

Ulundi King Senzangakona currently owned by Vukile Property Fund Limited

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Gross Lettable Area of Target Property (gla): ZAR 22,365
  • Maximum GLA of Nearest Comparable Property: ZAR 5,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Large Merger / Merger Approval

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that the acquisition of the target property would not result in any substantial prevention or lessening of competition, as there is no geographic overlap between the properties owned by the acquiring group and the target property. The applicant also provided an unequivocal statement that the transaction would have no effect on employment, with no retrenchments or job losses anticipated.
Respondent
The respondent, through the Competition Commission, found that although there is a horizontal overlap in the activities of the merging parties, there is no geographic overlap within a 15km radius. The Commission also addressed concerns raised by third parties regarding lease negotiations and management, concluding these were either unaffected by the transaction or irrelevant to competition or public interest. The employee representative of the target property confirmed that employees were informed and raised no concerns.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act, 1998, section 16(2)(a)

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

  2. 02

    Competition Act, 1998, section 12A

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

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the proposed merger between Community Property Company (Pty) Ltd and the letting enterprise known as Ulundi King Senzangakona Shopping Centre, owned by Vukile Property Fund Limited, would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market. This conclusion was based on the absence of geographic overlap between the properties of the merging parties and the lack of any change to the market structure for comparable rentable shopping centres in Ulundi. The Tribunal also considered public interest factors, noting that employees were informed and raised no concerns, and that the transaction would not result in retrenchments or job losses. Accordingly, the merger was approved unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • Concerns raised by third parties regarding lease negotiations and management of the target property were found to be either unaffected by the transaction or irrelevant to competition or public interest.
  • The merging parties provided an unequivocal statement that the proposed transaction would have no effect on employment, particularly no retrenchments or job losses.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

  • The merger between the abovementioned parties is approved in terms of section 16(2)(a) of the Competition Act, 1998.
  • A Merger Clearance Certificate is to be issued in terms of Competition Tribunal Rule 35(5)(a).

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

Order

[2021] ZACT 30

x

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No.: LM026May21

In the matter between:

Community Property Company (Pty) Ltd Primary Acquiring Firm

And

Ulundi King Senzangakona currently owned by Primary Target Firm

Vukile Property Fund Limited

Panel: M Mazwai (Presiding Member)

F Tregenna (Tribunal Panel Member)

T Vilakazi (Tribunal Panel Member)

Heard on: 23 June 2021

Order Issued on: 23 June 2021

ORDER

Further to the recommendation of the Competition Commission in terms of section 14A(1)(b) of the Competition Act, 1998 (“the Act”) the Competition Tribunal orders that–

1. the merger between the abovementioned parties be approved in terms of section 16(2)(a) of the Act; and

2. a Merger Clearance Certificate be issued in terms of Competition Tribunal Rule 35(5)(a).

Presiding Member 23 June 2021

Ms M Mazwai Date

Concurring: Prof. Fiona Tregenna and Dr Thando Vilakazi

Case no: LM026May21

In the large merger between:

Community Property Company (Pty) Ltd (Primary Acquiring Firm)

Ulundi King Senzangakona currently owned by

Vukile Property Fund Limited (Primary Target Firm)

Heard on: 23 June 2021

Order Issued on: 23 June 2021

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] On 23 June 2021, the Competition Tribunal unconditionally approved the large merger between Community Property Company (Pty) Ltd (“CPC”) and the letting enterprise known as Ulundi King Senzangakona Shopping Centre, owned by Vukile Property Fund Limited (the “target property”). The target property is located at King Dinuzulu/Princess Magogo Street in Ulundi, northern Kwa-Zulu Natal.

[2] The transaction involves CPC acquiring the target property from Vukile Property Fund Limited, such that CPC will have sole control over the target property post-merger.

[3] CPC is ultimately controlled by Old Mutual Limited ("OML").[1] The acquiring group through CPC is a property fund with a portfolio made up entirely of retail property, primarily community, small regional and regional shopping centres in rural and township areas in all nine provinces.

[4] The target property is a community centre with a gross lettable area (“GLA”) of 22 365m2. It consists of various components such as the main linear mall with line shops, a formal taxi rank, a KFC drive through and a fast-food court.[2]

[5] The Competition Commission (“Commission”) found a horizontal overlap in the activities of the merging parties as they are both active in the provision of lettable retail property. However, the Commission found no geographic overlap as the acquiring group does not own lettable centres within a 15km radius of the target property.[3]

[6] The Commission concluded that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition as there is no geographic overlap between the activities of the merging parties. The Commission also found that the proposed transaction is unlikely to change the structure of the market for comparative rentable shopping centres in Ulundi.

[7] The Commission found that concerns raised by third parties relating to lease negotiations and the management of the target property, were either unaffected by the proposed transaction, or had no bearing on competition or the public interest.

[8] In relation to public interest considerations, the Commission contacted the target property’s employee representative who confirmed that the employees were informed of the proposed transaction and raised no concerns. The Commission found that CPC does not have any employees.

[9] We also note that the merging parties provided an unequivocal statement that the proposed transaction would have no effect on employment, particularly no retrenchments or job losses.

[10] We concluded that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market, or to have a negative impact on the public interest.

Ms Mondo Mazwai 23 June 2021

Prof. Fiona Tregenna and Dr Thando Vilakazi concurring Date

Tribunal Case Manager: Peter Kumbirai

For the Merging Parties: Albert Aukema of Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc

For the Commission: Yolanda Okharedia and Themba Mahlangu

[1] OML controls several firms in South Africa, and is not controlled by any individual shareholder.

[2] The target property also houses anchor stores such as Spar, Game and Cashbuild, as well as other tenants that are well-known stores.

[3] The nearest lettable retail property owned by the acquiring group is incomparable as it is 70kms away from the target property, and is a convenience centre with a maximum GLA of 5 000m2. .

[3] The nearest lettable retail property owned by the acquiring group is incomparable as it is 70kms away from the target property, and is a convenience centre with a maximum GLA of 5 000m2.

.

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, 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.