Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Grindrod Property Private Equity (Pty) Ltd v Dunrose Investments 82 (Pty) Ltd (LM169Sep18) [2018] ZACT 47 (29 October 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 the relevant market for rentable light industrial properties. The merging parties are not competitors due to the lack of geographical overlap, with their properties located more than 10km apart. The acquisition includes one active property and a minority interest in undeveloped land, which is unlikely to be developed in the foreseeable future. The Tribunal also determined that there are no negative public interest effects, including on employment. Therefore, the transaction was approved unconditionally.

Court disposition

The proposed transaction is approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The merger between Grindrod Property Private Equity (Pty) Ltd and Dunrose Investments 82 (Pty) Ltd is approved without conditions.

02

Material facts

Parties

Grindrod Property Private Equity (Pty) Ltd

Applicant Counsel: V Chetty

Dunrose Investments 82 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Percentage of Share Capital Acquired in Dunrose: 40
  • Percentage Interest in Kingsgate Value Mall Asset: 15

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Approval / Decision on Approval

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The merging parties argued that the transaction involves GPPE acquiring 40% of Dunrose, resulting in joint control. They clarified that the acquisition includes one active property and a 15% interest in undeveloped land, with no negative impact on competition or employment. They asserted that there is no significant overlap in the geographic market and that the transaction will not affect public interest negatively.
Respondent
The Competition Commission submitted that there is a horizontal overlap in the market for rentable light industrial properties but found no geographical overlap, as the properties are more than 10km apart. The Commission concluded that the transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition and confirmed that there are no adverse public interest effects, including on employment.

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 the relevant 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 the proposed transaction does not result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition in the relevant market for rentable light industrial properties. The merging parties are not competitors due to the lack of geographical overlap, with their properties located more than 10km apart. The acquisition includes one active property and a minority interest in undeveloped land, which is unlikely to be developed in the foreseeable future. The Tribunal also determined that there are no negative public interest effects, including on employment. Therefore, the transaction was approved unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that clarity regarding the assets being acquired was necessary, particularly concerning Dunrose's interest in Kingsgate Mall and the undeveloped land in Soweto.
  • The Tribunal observed that the likelihood of development of the vacant stand is minimal given current market conditions.

Court disposition

The proposed transaction is approved unconditionally.

  • The merger between Grindrod Property Private Equity (Pty) Ltd and Dunrose Investments 82 (Pty) Ltd is approved without conditions.

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 47

COMPETITION TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH

AFRICA

Case No: LM169Sep18

In the matter between

Grindrod Property Private Equity (Pty) Ltd

Primary Acquiring Firm

And

Dunrose Investments 82 (Pty) Ltd

Primary Target Firm

Panel

: Norman Manoim (Presiding Member)

: Andiswa Ndoni (Tribunal Member)

: Halton Cheadle (Tribunal Member)

Heard on

: 10 October 2018

Order Issued on : 10 October 2018

Reasons Issued on : 29 October 2018

REASONS

FOR DECISION

Approval

[1] On 10 October 2018, the Competition Tribunal ("Tribunal") unconditionally approved the proposed transaction involving Grindrod Property Private Equity (Pty) Ltd ("GPPE") and Dunrose Investments 82 (Pty) Ltd ("Dunrose"), hereinafter

collectively referred to as the merging parties.

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

Parties to the transaction

Primary Acquiring Firm

[3] GPPE is ultimately controlled by Grindrod Limited ("Grindrod"), a company listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. The shares in Grindrod are widely dispersed and as such no single shareholder controls Grindrod. In addition to GPPE, Grindrod controls numerous firms. Grindrod and all its subsidiaries are hereinafter collectively referred to as the 'Grindrod Group'.

[4] The Grindrod Group is active in the freight and logistics industry as well as the financial services industry. Due to their activities, the group has split their operations into two divisions, the Grindrod Freight Services Division ("Freight Division") and the Grindrod Financial Services Division ("Financial Division").

[5] Of relevance is the Financial Division which GPPE falls under. The Financial Division has banking, private equity, asset management and exchange trade fund services. GPPE is a private equity company which invests in properties directly or indirectly through property owning companies.

Primary Target Firm

[6] Dunrose is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Griffin Holdings (Pty) Ltd ("Griffin Holdings".) Griffin Holdings controls numerous firms in South Africa. Dunrose jointly controls Kingsgate Shopping Centre (Pty) Ltd ("Kingsgate"). Griffin Holdings and Dunrose and all firms directly and indirectly controlled by them are hereinafter collectively referred to as the 'Griffin Group".

[7] The Griffin Group is active in the property sector. The Griffin Group has an investment property portfolio comprised of industrial and commercial property. Dunrose owns one light industrial property located in Anderbolt, Germiston.

Proposed transaction

[8] In terms of the Subscription Agreement, GPPE will acquire 40% of the issued share capital in Dunrose and will therefore exercise joint control over Dunrose post-merger.

Impact on competition

[9] The Competition Commission ("Commission") considered the activities of the merging parties and identified a horizontal overlap in the product market for the provision of rentable light industrial properties.

[10] The Commission found no geographical overlap between the light industrial properties owned by the merging parties. The Commission found that light industrial properties would be constrained by competing light industrial properties within a 10km radius. However, in this case, the closest light industrial property owned by the Grindrod Group is located approximately 20km away from Dunrose's property in Germiston. Therefore, the merging parties are not competitors.

[11] In light of the above, the Commission concluded that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant market.

[12] At the hearing, the Tribunal queried about what exactly is being acquired in the proposed transaction. The Commission's report only

spoke to the property in Germiston and skipped over Dunrose's 50% share capital in Kingsgate. Any firm acquiring Dunrose would in fact be acquiring two properties in the Tribunal's view. In response, the merging parties broke down the structure of Kingsgate and its activities. Kingsgate owns 30% of Kingsgate Value Mall ("Kingsgate Mall) which in turn, owns a vacant stand in Klipriviersoog,

Soweto.[1] Meaning Dunrose owns 15% of that asset.[2] This vacant stand was acquired 8 years ago with a view to developing it into a shopping centre.[3] Such a development has not taken place and due to the current climate, it is highly unlikely that it will take place in the future.[4] GPPE is therefore acquiring one active property and 15% of undeveloped land.

[13] Given that the merging parties provided clarity on what exactly is being acquired and considering the nature of the proposed transaction, we have no reason to doubt the Commission's conclusion that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen

competition in the relevant market.

Public interest

[14] The merging parties confirmed that the proposed transaction will not have any negative effects on employment in South Africa.

[15] The proposed transaction raises no other public interest concerns.

Conclusion

[16] In light of the above, we conclude that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any

relevant market. In addition, no public interest concerns arise from the proposed transaction. Accordingly, we approve the proposed

transaction unconditionally.

Mr Norman Manoim

Ms Adiswa Ndoni and Mr Halton Cheadle concurring.

29 October 2018

Date

Tribunal Researcher:

Hlumelo Vazi

For the merging parties: V Chetty of Vani Chetty Competition Law

For the Commission

I Mhlongo and W Gumbie

[1] Transcript, pg 3.

[2] Transcript, pg 4.

[3] Transcript, pg 3.

[4] Transcript, pg 3.

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.