Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Competition Tribunal

Rebosis Property Fund Limited v Ascension Properties Limited (LM223Mar15) [2015] ZACT 46; Wessels J (4 June 2015)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal found that the merged entity would have a market share of less than 15% in the relevant office property markets in Pretoria and Johannesburg. It was unnecessary to take a definitive view on the precise market definition, as the transaction was unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition under either a broad or narrow market definition. No negative public interest effects, including employment impacts, were identified. The Tribunal therefore approved the merger unconditionally.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

Orders

  • The proposed merger between Rebosis Property Fund Limited and Ascension Properties Limited is approved unconditionally.

02

Material facts

Parties

Rebosis Property Fund Limited

Applicant Counsel: Albert Aukema

Ascension Properties Limited

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Percentage of B Linked Unit Capital Acquired: 70.94
  • Percentage of a Linked Unit Capital Acquired: 100

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Merger Control / Merger Approval

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The merging parties argued that the transaction would enable them to become a significant listed BEE property fund and attract a wider investor base. They submitted that the merger would not negatively impact employment and that no retrenchments would result.
Respondent
The Competition Commission identified two relevant markets for assessment and found that the merged entity would have post-merger market shares of less than 15% in both. The Commission concluded that the transaction was unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition and raised no 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 merged entity would have a market share of less than 15% in the relevant office property markets in Pretoria and Johannesburg. It was unnecessary to take a definitive view on the precise market definition, as the transaction was unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition under either a broad or narrow market definition. No negative public interest effects, including employment impacts, were identified. The Tribunal therefore approved the merger unconditionally.

Obiter and limits

  • The Tribunal noted that the merging parties would become a significant listed BEE property fund post-merger.
  • The Tribunal observed that no retrenchments would result from the transaction, and no other public interest concerns were raised.

Court disposition

Merger approved unconditionally.

  • The proposed merger between Rebosis Property Fund Limited and Ascension Properties 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

[2015] ZACT 46

COMPETITION

TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: LM223Mar15

DATE: 04 JUNE 2015

In the matter between:

REBOSIS

PROPERTY FUND LIMITED.....................................................Primary Acquiring Firm

And

ASCENSION

PROPERTIES LIMITED.............................................................Primary Target Firm

Panel : Andreas Wessels (Presiding Member)

: Prof Fiona Tregenna (Tribunal Member)

: Medi Mokuena (Tribunal Member)

Heard on : 27 May 2015

Order Issued on : 27 May 2015

Reasons Issued on : 04 June 2015

Reasons for Decision

Approval

[1] On 27 May 2015, the Competition Tribunal (“Tribunal”) unconditionally approved the merger between Rebosis Property Fund Limited (“Rebosis”) and Ascension Properties Limited (“Ascension”).

[2] The reasons for approving the proposed transaction follow.

Parties to transaction and their activities

Primary acquiring firm

[3] The primary acquiring firm is Rebosis, Rebosis is a real estate investment trust listed on the Johannesburg Securities Exchange Limited (“JSE”) and is not controlled by any individual entity.

[4] Rebosis provides rentable retail space, office property and industrial property. Relevant to the competition assessment of the proposed transaction are Rebosis’s office properties in Pretoria and Johannesburg.

Primary target firm

[5] The primary target firm is Ascension, a property fund listed on the JSE. Ascension is not controlled by any single entity.

[6] Ascension is a property investment company approved as a Real Estate Investment Trust. It provides rental space in office and industrial property. Relevant to the competition assessment of the proposed transaction are Ascension’s office properties located in Pretoria and Johannesburg.

Proposed transaction and rationale

[7] In terms of the proposed transaction, Rebosis will acquire the remaining 70.94% of the B linked unit capital and 100% of the A linked unit capital of Ascension.[1] Post­merger Rebosis will hold 100% of the A and B linked unit capital of Ascension.

[8] The merging parties submitted that the proposed transaction will enable them to inter alia be a significant listed BEE property fund and attract a wider investor base.

Impact on competition

[9] The Competition Commission (“Commission”) identified the following two relevant markets:

• The market for the provision of rentable space in Grade B and C office property in the Pretoria CBD and surrounding nodes (including Arcadia and Sunnyside); and

• The market for the provision of rentable space in Grade A and B office property in the Johannesburg and surrounding nodes (including

Braamfontein).

[10]The Commission found that the merged entity will have post-merger market shares of less than 15% in the above-mentioned markets.

[11]It is however not necessary for us to take a definitive view in this case on the exact parameters of the relevant product or geographic

markets. The proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any (potential) relevant market,

whether broadly defined (i.e. more than one grade of office property, as considered by the Commission in this case (see paragraph 9 above)) or narrowly defined (i.e. each grade of office property considered separately), given the sizes of the (potential) relevant markets in question and the current players active in these (potential) markets.

Public interest

[12]The merging parties confirmed that the proposed transaction will not have a negative impact on employment and that no retrenchments will result from the transaction.[2]

[13]The proposed merger raises no other public interest concerns.

Conclusion

[14]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 issues arise from the proposed transaction. Accordingly we approve the proposed

transaction unconditionally.

04 June 2015

DATE

Andreas Wessels

Prof Fiona Tregenna and Medi Mokuena concurring

Tribunal Researcher: Ammara Cachalia

For the merging parties: Albert Aukema of Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr

For the Commission: Nokuphiwa Kunene, Seema Nunkoo and Xolela Nokele

[1] Pre-merger Rebosis has 29.06% of the B linked unit capital of Ascension, but does not hold any A linked unit capital.

[1] Pre-merger Rebosis has 29.06% of the B linked unit capital of Ascension, but does not hold any A

linked unit capital.

[2] Merger record, pages 8 and 47.

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.