Impala Platinum Holdings Limited v Royal Bafokeng Platinum Limited (LM156Dec21) [2022] ZACT 49 (16 November 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] ZACT 49
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- Y Carrim, A Ndoni, I Valodia
- Case number
- LM156Dec21
More details
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- Y Carrim, A Ndoni, I Valodia
- Case number
- LM156Dec21
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal considered the recommendation of the Competition Commission and all relevant information submitted by the parties. It found that the proposed merger between Impala Platinum Holdings Limited and Royal Bafokeng Platinum Limited did not raise competition concerns and complied with the requirements of the Competition Act. The Tribunal approved the merger in terms of section 16(2)(b) of the Act and ordered that a Merger Clearance Certificate be issued. No conditions were attached to the approval.
Court disposition
Merger approved without conditions.
Orders
- The merger between Impala Platinum Holdings Limited and Royal Bafokeng Platinum Limited is approved in terms of section 16(2)(b) of the Competition Act.
- A Merger Clearance Certificate is to be issued in terms of Competition Tribunal Rule 35(5)(a).
02
Material facts
Parties
Impala Platinum Holdings Limited
ApplicantRoyal Bafokeng Platinum Limited
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Merger Application / Final Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the proposed merger between Impala Platinum Holdings Limited and Royal Bafokeng Platinum Limited should be approved under section 16(2)(b) of the Competition Act.
- 02
Whether any conditions should be attached to the approval of the merger.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought approval for the merger in accordance with Chapter 3 of the Competition Act, arguing that the transaction would not substantially prevent or lessen competition and that it complied with all statutory requirements.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not oppose the merger and complied with all procedural requirements. The Competition Commission recommended approval of the merger.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 16(2) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998
A merger may be approved by the Competition Tribunal if it does not substantially prevent or lessen competition, or if any identified concerns can be remedied through conditions.
- 02
Section 16(3) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998
The Tribunal may revoke merger approval if it was granted on the basis of incorrect information, deceit, or breach of obligations attached to the approval.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal considered the recommendation of the Competition Commission and all relevant information submitted by the parties. It found that the proposed merger between Impala Platinum Holdings Limited and Royal Bafokeng Platinum Limited did not raise competition concerns and complied with the requirements of the Competition Act. The Tribunal approved the merger in terms of section 16(2)(b) of the Act and ordered that a Merger Clearance Certificate be issued. No conditions were attached to the approval.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal retains the authority to revoke approval if it is later found that the approval was obtained by deceit, incorrect information, or breach of obligations.
Court disposition
Merger approved without conditions.
- The merger between Impala Platinum Holdings Limited and Royal Bafokeng Platinum Limited is approved in terms of section 16(2)(b) of the Competition Act.
- 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.
Competition Tribunal
Order
COMPETITION TRIBUNAL
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No.: LM156Dec21
In the matter between:
Impala Platinum Holdings Limited
Primary Acquiring Firm
And
Royal Bafokeng Platinum Limited
Primary Target Firm
Panel: Y
Carrim (Presiding Member)
A Ndoni (Tribunal Member)
I Valodia (Tribunal Member)
Heard on: 04
August, 31 October, 01, 02 and 04 November 2022
Last submission date: 9 November 2022
Order Issued on: 16
November 2022
ORDER
Further to the recommendation of the Competition Commission in terms of section that:
1. the merger between the abovementioned parties be approved in terms of section 16(2)(b) of the Act; and
2. a Merger Clearance Certificate be issued in terms of Competition Tribunal Rule 35(5)(a).
Presiding Member Ms Yasmin Carrim
Concurring: Ms Andiswa Ndoni and Prof Imraan I. Valodia
Merger Clearance Certificate
Date : 16 November 2022
To : Nortons Inc
You applied to the Competition Commission on 17 December 2021 for merger approval in accordance with Chapter 3 of the Competition Act.
Your merger was referred to the Competition Tribunal in terms of section 14A of the Act, or was the subject of a Request for consideration by the Tribunal in terms of section 16(1) of the Act.
After reviewing all relevant information, and the recommendation or decision of the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal approves the merger in terms of section 16(2) of the Act, for the reasons set out in the Reasons for Decision.
This approval is subject to: no conditions. the conditions listed on the attached sheet.
The Competition Tribunal has the authority in terms of section 16(3) of the Competition Act to revoke this approval if:
a) it was granted on the basis of incorrect information for which a party to the merger was responsible.
b) the approval was obtained by deceit.
c) a firm concerned has breached an obligation attached to this approval.
The Registrar, Competition Tribunal
This form is prescribed by the Minister of Trade and Industry in terms of section 27 (2) of the Competition Act 1998 (Act No. 89 of 1998).
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.