Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Indluplace Properties Limited v Diluculo Properties Proprietary Limited (LM023Apr17) [2017] ZACT 14 (26 June 2017)

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 presents a horizontal overlap in the market for rentable space in affordable housing property. However, based on market share estimates and competitor feedback, the merging parties' combined market share in each affected geographic area would be less than 10%. The Tribunal noted that only a small increment in market share would result from the merger and that sufficient alternative affordable housing options would remain available. No adverse public interest concerns, including employment effects, were identified. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the merger is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market and raises no public interest issues. The transaction was approved unconditionally.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The large merger between Indluplace Properties Limited and Diluculo Properties Proprietary Limited is approved unconditionally.

02

Material facts

Parties

Indluplace Properties Limited

Applicant Counsel: Ms Vani Chetty

Diluculo Properties Proprietary Limited

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Combined Market Share in Affected Geographic Areas: 10

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Approval / Final Determination

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Indluplace Properties argued that the acquisition of Diluculo Properties would complement its existing property portfolio, as Diluculo's properties are yield enhancing and fit within Indluplace's focus on affordable housing. The merging parties submitted that their combined market share in each affected geographic area would be less than 10%, and that sufficient alternative rentable affordable housing properties would remain available post-merger. They confirmed that no retrenchments or job losses would result from the transaction.
Respondent
Diluculo Investments and its controllers no longer considered Diluculo Properties a core asset and resolved to sell it. The respondent did not oppose the merger and confirmed that the transaction would not negatively impact employment or raise other public interest concerns.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Competition Act 89 of 1998

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

  2. 02

    Competition Act 89 of 1998

    Public interest considerations, including employment effects, must be assessed in merger proceedings.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal found that the proposed transaction presents a horizontal overlap in the market for rentable space in affordable housing property. However, based on market share estimates and competitor feedback, the merging parties' combined market share in each affected geographic area would be less than 10%. The Tribunal noted that only a small increment in market share would result from the merger and that sufficient alternative affordable housing options would remain available. No adverse public interest concerns, including employment effects, were identified. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the merger is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any relevant market and raises no public interest issues. The transaction was approved unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal took no view on the exact scope of the relevant geographic market, noting that the market share increment in each area is small and alternatives are available.
  • The merging parties confirmed that there would be no retrenchments or job losses as a result of the transaction.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

  • The large merger between Indluplace Properties Limited and Diluculo Properties Proprietary Limited is approved unconditionally.

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

[2017] ZACT 14

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: LM023Apr17

In the matter between

lndluplace Properties Limited

Primary Acquiring Firm

And

Diluculo Properties Proprietary Limited

Primary Target Firm

Panel

: Mr AW Wessels (Presiding Member)

: Ms M Mazwai (Tribunal Member)

: Prof. I Valodia (Tribunal Member)

Heard on

: 14 June 2017

Order Issued on : 14 June 2017

Reasons Issued on : 26 June 2017

REASONS

FOR DECISION

APPROVAL

[1] On 14 June 2017, the Competition Tribunal ("Tribunal") unconditionally approved the large merger between lndluplace

Properties Limited ("lndluplace Properties") and Diluculo Properties Proprietary Limited ("Diluculo Properties"),

herein collectively referred to as the merging parties.

[2] The reasons for the approval follow.

PARTIES

TO THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION

Primary Acquiring Firm

[3] The primary acquiring firm is lndluplace Properties, a company incorporated in accordance with the laws of the Republic of South

Africa. lndluplace Properties is controlled by Arrowhead Properties Limited. lndluplace Properties controls a number of firms.

[4] lndluplace Properties is a property investment company which holds a large residential property portfolio. It invests in residential

properties with a focus on affordable housing generally in large urban centres.

Primary Target Firm

[5] The primary target firm is Diluculo Properties, a company incorporated in accordance with the laws of the Republic of South

Africa. Pre-merger Diluculo Properties is a wholly owned subsidiary of Diluculo Investments Proprietary Limited ("Diluculo

Investments"), which is in turn wholly owned by Barclays Africa Group Limited. Diluculo Properties does not control any firm.

[6] Diluculo Properties invests in income producing residential properties. It owns eight residential property letting enterprises in the Free State and in Gauteng.

PROPOSED

TRANSACTION AND RATIONALE

[7] lndluplace Properties intends to acquire the entire issued share capital of Diluculo Properties from Diluculo Investments. Post-merger

Jndluplace Properties will therefore exercise sole control over Diluculo Properties.

[8] According to lndluplace Properties, Diluculo Properties' property portfolio comprises yield enhancing properties and complements its own property portfolio.

[9] Diluculo Investments and its controllers no longer view Diluculo Properties as a core asset and thus they have resolved to sell it.

COMPETITION

ANALYSIS

[10] The Competition Commission ("Commission") considered the activities of the merging parties and found that the proposed

transaction presents a horizontal overlap since both the merging parties are active in the market for the provision of rentable space in affordable housing property. From a geographic market perspective, the Commission assessed the properties of the merging parties in the Johannesburg CBD and surrounding nodes, Pretoria CBD and surrounding nodes, Centurion and Region A, Ekurhuleni.

[11] For the purposes of the market concentration assessment, the Commission relied on the market share estimates of the merging

parties since there are limited available data. The Commission also contacted competitors of the merging parties to ascertain their views on the size of the market(s) and the competitive climate.

[12] The Tribunal questioned the Commission and the merging parties regarding the scope of the geographic market and the estimation of market shares. The merging parties indicated that they used a geographic radius of approximately eight kilometres to estimate

their combined market share in each affected

geographic area.[1] Based on this, the merging parties have a combined market

share of less than 10% in the market for the provision of rentable space in affordable housing property in each affected geographic area.

[13] We take no view in this case on the exact scope of the relevant geographic market and note that lndluplace Properties is acquiring

only a single property from Dilucuto Properties in each of the following areas: Pretoria CBD, Centurion, Kempton Park, Germiston,

Pretoria West and Bloemfontein; and is acquiring two properties, Jozi House and Frederick House, in the Johannesburg CBD. There appears to be a small market share increment in each market as a result of the proposed transaction and, furthermore, sufficient alternative rentable affordable housing property in each affected geographic area post-merger.

[14] We concur with the Commission's ultimate conclusion that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen

competition in any relevant market.

PUBLIC

INTEREST

[15] The merging parties confirmed that the proposed transaction will have no adverse effect on employment. In particular, there will be no retrenchments or job losses as a result of the proposed transaction.[2]

[16] Furthermore, the proposed transaction raises no other public interest concerns.

CONCLUSION

[17] 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 other public interest issues arise as a result of the proposed transaction. Accordingly, we approve the proposed transaction unconditionally.

26 June 2017

Date

_______

Mr AW Wessels

Ms M Mazwai and Prof. I Valodia concurring

Tribunal Researcher : Mr Ndumiso Ndlovu

For the merging parties : Ms Vani Chetty of Baker McKenzie Attorneys

For the Commission : Ms Zanele Hadebe

[1] Transcript, pages 3 to 5;

[2] Merger Record, pages 9 and 82.

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.

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.