Orviscene Proprietary Limited v Makrogate Limited (LM166Dec20) [2021] ZACT 2 (6 January 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] ZACT 2
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- M Mazwai, E Daniels, A Wessels
- Case number
- LM166Dec20
More details
- Court
- Competition Tribunal
- Panel
- M Mazwai, E Daniels, A Wessels
- Case number
- LM166Dec20
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that the proposed transaction would not result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in the market for rentable retail property in Brackenfell and surrounding areas, as the merged entity's market share would remain below 10% and there are sufficient alternatives available. Furthermore, the transaction would not negatively affect employment, as neither party has employees, and no other public interest concerns were raised. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the transaction unconditionally.
Court disposition
The proposed merger is approved unconditionally.
Orders
- The merger between Orviscene Proprietary Limited and Makrogate Limited is approved without conditions.
02
Material facts
Parties
Orviscene Proprietary Limited
Applicant Counsel: Duduetsang Mogapi and Albert AukemaMakrogate Limited
Respondent Counsel: Duduetsang Mogapi and Albert AukemaAmounts and remedies
- Merged Entity Market Share (brackenfell and Surrounding Nodes): 10
03
Procedural history
Posture
Merger Application / Approval
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Does the proposed acquisition substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant market?
- 02
Does the transaction raise any public interest concerns, including employment effects?
- 03
Is there a significant product overlap or market concentration resulting from the merger?
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The acquiring group argued that the transaction aligns with its strategic objectives and provides an opportunity to invest and gain exposure in the retail property market. They submitted that the transaction would not result in any retrenchments or negative employment impact, as neither firm has employees. The transaction is intended to allow the target firm to divest the property and realise profits.
- Respondent
- The Competition Commission found a product overlap in rentable retail property in the Western Cape but determined that the merged entity's market share would remain below 10%. The Commission submitted that there are ample alternatives in the market and that the transaction would not result in any substantial lessening or prevention of competition. No public interest concerns were identified.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Competition Act 89 of 1998
A merger may only be prohibited if it is likely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant market.
- 02
Competition Act 89 of 1998
Public interest factors, including employment, must be considered in merger assessments.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that the proposed transaction would not result in a substantial lessening or prevention of competition in the market for rentable retail property in Brackenfell and surrounding areas, as the merged entity's market share would remain below 10% and there are sufficient alternatives available. Furthermore, the transaction would not negatively affect employment, as neither party has employees, and no other public interest concerns were raised. Accordingly, the Tribunal approved the transaction unconditionally.
Obiter and limits
- The Tribunal noted that the transaction aligns with the strategic objectives of the acquiring group and provides an opportunity for investment in the retail property market.
- It was observed that the target firm sought to divest the property to realise profits, which is a legitimate commercial rationale.
Court disposition
The proposed merger is approved unconditionally.
- The merger between Orviscene Proprietary Limited and Makrogate Limited 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.
Competition Tribunal
Judgment
COMPETITTION
TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No: LM166Dec20
In the matter between:
Orviscene Proprietary Limited Primary Acquiring Firm
And
Makrogate Limited
Primary Target Firm
Panel: Ms M Mazwai (Presiding Member)
Mr E Daniels (Tribunal Member)
Mr A Wessels (Tribunal Member)
Heard on: 18 December 2020
Order Issued on: 21 December 2020
Reasons Issued on: 06 January 2021
REASONS
FOR DECISION
Approval
[1] On 18 December 2020, the Competition Tribunal (âTribunalâ) unconditionally approved the proposed transaction in which Orviscene Proprietary Limited (âOrvisceneâ) intends to acquire, as a going concern, the rental enterprise property of Makrogate Limited ("Makrogate").
[2] The reasons for the approval of the proposed transaction follow.
Primary acquiring firm
[3] The primary acquiring firm is Orviscene, a private company incorporated in accordance with the laws of the Republic of South Africa, controlled by Emerging African Property Partners Proprietary Limited (âEAPPâ) [â¦] EAPP is in turn controlled by the Government Employee Pension Fund ("GEPF") [â¦] and Emerging African Property Holdings Proprietary Limited ("EAPH") [...].
GEPF is controlled by its Board of Trustees in terms of section 6(2) of the Government Employees Pension Law 21 of 1996 and is duly represented by the Public Investment Corporation SOC Limited. The shareholders in EAPH are individual shareholders, none of whom have a controlling interest in EAPH.
[4] The GEPF holds interests in various firms. Apart from EAPP, EAPH controls Enigma Empowerment Holdings 1 Proprietary Limited. Orviscene currently does not control any firms. EAPP holds interests in industrial properties situated in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal.
Primary target firm
[5] The primary target firm is Makrogate, a rental enterprise conducted on Erf 22354 Brackenfell, City of Cape Town (âTarget Propertyâ). Makrogate is a property holding company, in respect of the retail warehouse situated at 14 Belami Avenue, Brackenfell in the Western Cape province. Makrogate operates as a landlord, holding a single property in the Cape Gate Centre in the northern suburbs of Cape Town, being the Target Property.
[6] The Target Property is subject to a long-term lease in favour of Makro and was purpose-built for Makro's needs as a large retailer that operates with high volumes and quick turnover of stock.
Transaction
[7] According to the Sale of Enterprise Agreement, Orviscene will acquire, as a going concern, the rental enterprise, which includes the Target Property and the seller's rights and obligations in terms of the leases and contracts as defined in the agreement.
[8] Post transaction, the Target Property will be owned by the Acquiring Group.
Rationale
[9] The Acquiring Group submits that this transaction aligns with its strategic objectives and presents an opportunity for it to invest and gain exposure in the retail property market.
[10] For the target firm, this proposed transaction presents an opportunity for it to divest of the property in order to realise profits from the entity.
Competition Analysis
[11] The Commission found that there is a product overlap in the provision of rentable retail property in the Western Cape. The target property is situated in Brackenfell. The GEPF has three industrial properties in Brackenfell and surrounding areas. The Commission considered the market shares held by the merging parties in the market for the provision of rentable light industrial property in Brackenfell and surrounding nodes within a 15km radius. It found that the merged entity will have a market share below 10%. The Commission submitted that there are ample alternatives in the market.
[12] Therefore, the proposed transaction does not result in any substantial lessening or prevention of competition in the market under consideration.
[13] The merging parties submitted that the proposed transaction will not result in any retrenchments and will not have any negative impact on employment as neither the acquiring or target firm has any employees.
[14] As such, the proposed transaction did not raise any public interest concerns.
Conclusion
[15] In light of the above, we concluded that the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in the relevant market. Furthermore, the proposed transaction does not raise any public interest concerns. Consequently, we approved the transaction unconditionally.
06 January 2021
Ms Mondo Mazwai Date
Mr Enver Daniels and Mr Andreas Wessels
Tribunal Case Managers: Lumkisa Jordan and Mpumi Tshabalala
For the merging parties: Duduetsang Mogapi and Albert Aukema of Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc
For the Commission: Nolubabalo Myoli and Wiri Gumbie
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.