Eoh Intelligent Infrastructure Proprietary Limited v Joat Sales and Services Proprietary Limited and Others (LM019May16) [2016] ZACT 47 (14 June 2016)

Eoh Intelligent Infrastructure Proprietary Limited v Joat Sales and Services Proprietary Limited and Others (LM019May16) [2016] ZACT 47 (14 June 2016)

The Tribunal found that there is no horizontal overlap between the acquiring and target firms, as their products and services are distinct and not substitutable. The possibility of anti-competitive bundling was investigated and dismissed, given that customers tender for services separately. The Tribunal accepted the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZACT 47
Parties
Applicant: EOH Intelligent Infrastructure Proprietary Limited; Respondent: JOAT Sales and Services Proprietary Limited; Respondent: JOAT Consulting Proprietary Limited; Respondent: JOAT Sales and Services EC Proprietary Limited; Respondent: JOAT Sales and Services GP Proprietary Limited
Court
Competition Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
LM019May16
Procedural Posture
Merger Review / Final Determination
Outcome
Merger approved unconditionally.
Judges
Norman Manoim, Andreas Wessels, Mondo Mazwai
Legal Topics
Merger Control, Horizontal Overlap, Bundling Strategy, Public Interest, Employment Impact
Competition Law Merger Control Horizontal Overlap Bundling Strategy Public Interest Employment Impact

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EOH Intelligent Infrastructure Proprietary Limited

Applicant

JOAT Sales and Services Proprietary Limited

Respondent

JOAT Consulting Proprietary Limited

Respondent

JOAT Sales and Services EC Proprietary Limited

Respondent

JOAT Sales and Services GP Proprietary Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Merger Review / Final Determination

  1. 1 Whether the proposed merger would substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market.
  2. 2 Whether the merger raises any public interest concerns, including adverse impact on employment.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that there is no horizontal overlap between the acquiring and target firms, as their products and services are distinct and not substitutable. The possibility of anti-competitive bundling was investigated and dismissed, given that customers tender for services separately. The Tribunal accepted the Commission's assessment that the merger would not substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market. Furthermore, the merging parties confirmed that there would be no adverse impact on employment or other public interest concerns. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the merger unconditionally.

Court Disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The proposed merger between EOH Intelligent Infrastructure Proprietary Limited and the target firms is approved without conditions.