/ MEDIA STATEMENT / The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

Kempster Sedgwick (Pty) Limited (Kempster Sedgwick) v The Honda, Citroen and Peugeot Motor Dealership located in Umhlanga Ridge and operated by Mekor Umhlanga Ridge (Pty) Limited (Mekor Umhlanga Dealership)
 
The Commission has recommended to the Competition Tribunal (Tribunal) that the proposed merger, whereby Kempster Sedgwick intends to acquire Mekor Umhlanga Dealership, be approved, without conditions.
 
Kempster Sedgwick is a company incorporated in South Africa. Kempster Sedgwick is controlled by CMH Holdings (Pty) Ltd (CMH Holdings), which is in turn controlled by CMH. CMH does not control any other firm than CMH Holdings. CMH Holdings controls several firms within the automotive industry. The acquiring firm and all the firms controlling it will be collectively referred to as the Acquiring Group or the CMH Group. The CMH Group operates car hire, fleet management services, digital marketing and National Workshop Equipment. Relevant to the proposed transaction, the CMH Group operates retail motor dealerships and also performs all functions associated with that, mainly in KwaZulu Natal and Gauteng provinces.
 
Mekor Umhlanga Dealership is a company incorporated in South Africa. Mekor Umhlanga Dealership is controlled by Mekor Motors Umhlanga Ridge (Pty) Ltd (Mekor Umhlanga), which is in turn controlled by Mekor Motors Holdings (Pty) Ltd (Mekor Holdings). The target firm operates as a retailer of Honda and Peugeot branded new and used passenger vehicles and Honda branded motor cycles and also performs all other dealership related functions thereof.
 
The Commission found that the proposed transaction is unlikely to result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition in the relevant markets. The Commission further found that the proposed transaction does not raise any public interest concerns.
 
Abrina 3765 (Pty) Ltd (Abrina) v Hyde Park Auto (Pty) Ltd’s (Hyde Park Auto) Sandton Auto Business (Sandton Auto Business) and Sandton Approved Repair Centre (Sandton ARC)
The Commission has approved, the proposed merger, without conditions, whereby Abrina intends to acquire Hyde Park Auto’s Sandton Auto Business and Sandton ARC.
 
Abrina is controlled by the VFT Group. The VFT Group is an accredited BMW car dealership which is involved in the retail of new and used BMW and Mini passenger vehicles and BMW motorcycles in terms of dealership franchise agreements with BMW South Africa Proprietary Limited (BMW SA). The VFT Group has a total of three dealerships in the Gauteng Province.
 
Sandton Auto Business is an accredited retailer of new and used BMW and Mini passenger vehicles and BMW motorcycles in terms of a dealership franchise agreement with BMW SA. The business of Sandton Auto Business is currently conducted in Sandton, in the Gauteng province. Sandton ARC, located in Wynberg (Sandton), is an auto body repair business which provides accredited repair services for BMW and Mini passenger vehicles and BMW motorcycles.
 
The Commission found that the proposed transaction is unlikely to result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition in any relevant market. The Commission further found that the proposed transaction does not raise any public interest concerns.
 
Growthpoint Properties Limited (Growthpoint) v SA Retail Properties Limited in respect of 1 Holwood Park La Lucia Ridge (Target Property)
 

The Commission has approved, the proposed merger, without conditions, whereby Growthpoint intends to acquire the Target Property.
 
Growthpoint is a property investment holding company which is listed as a Real Estate Investment Trust on Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Growthpoint’s portfolio consists of rentable retail space, rentable office space and rentable industrial space.
 
The Target Property is classified as grade A office property situated in the Umhlanga area in Durban (KwaZulu Natal).
 
The Commission found that the proposed transaction is unlikely to result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition in any relevant markets. The Commission further found that the proposed transaction does not raise any employment or public interest concerns.
 
Warterhouse (Pty) Ltd (Warterhouse) v Annuity Properties (Pty) (Annuity Properties)Ltd in respect of the letting enterprise known as the Riverhorse Valley Property (Target Property)
 

The Commission has approved, the proposed merger, without conditions, whereby Warterhouse intends to acquire the Target Property.
 
Waterhouse is a property investment company that owns office, retail and residential properties in the KwaZulu Natal and Gauteng provinces. The Target Property is a rentable light industrial property situated in Durban, KwaZulu Natal.
 
The Commission found that the proposed transaction is unlikely to result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition in any relevant markets. The Commission further found that the proposed transaction does not raise any employment or public interest concerns.
 
Advent International Corporation (AIC) v Evonik Industries AG’s (Evonik) methacrylates business (Target Business)
 
The Commission has approved, the proposed merger, without conditions, whereby AIC intends to acquire Target Business from Evonik.
 
AIC is an investment holding company that currently has investments in financial services, healthcare, industrial, retail, consumer and leisure sectors. AIC does not control any firm in South Africa
 
The Target Business comprises five integrated business divisions of Evonik that are active through the methacrylate’s value chain. In South Africa, the Target Business includes only one company, Evonik Acrylics Africa Proprietary Limited, which produces acrylic products sold under the PLEXIGLAS® trademark.
 
The Commission found that the proposed transaction is unlikely to result in a substantial prevention or lessening of competition in any relevant markets. The Commission further found that the proposed transaction does not raise any employment or public interest concerns.
 
 
Non Referrals: The Commission has taken a decision to non-refer (not to prosecute) the following cases:
 
2.1   Complaints against South African Airlink (Pty) Ltd

The Commission received complaints of excessive pricing against South African Airlink (Pty) Ltd (SA Airlink) from the following individuals: Dr. Jeannete  Borghesi, Rudy van Tonder, Wimpie Spangenberg, Albertus van Der Merwe, Tertia Visser, Elna Marais, Dirk Marais, Andre Nel, Andre Mayer, Coreen Kotze and Elmarie Bezuidenhout.

Previously in October 2018 and January 2019, the Commission took a decision to accept the withdrawal of the complaints against SA Airlink by Andre Nel and JW Duma, respectively.

The matter against SA Airlink with regards to the JHB-Mthatha still continues before the Competition Tribunal.

The Commission is of the view that the conduct complained of, by the various complainants listed above, does not contravene the Competition Act.
 
2.2   Mark Veldsman v Property Groups

The Commission is of the view that the conduct complained of does not contravene the Competition Act

 
2.3   Vincent Morake v SANRAL- GeoAfrica Group and MAJV

The Commission is of the view that the conduct complained of does not contravene the Competition Act

 
2.4   Andre Arendse v Much Asphalt and PC Transport

The Commission is of the view that the conduct complained of does not contravene the Competition Act

2.5   Anonymous v Property 24

The Commission is of the view that the conduct complained of does not contravene the Competition Act.

 
2.6   Amanda Allie v Van der Spuy & Partners and the Drakenstein Municipality

The Commission is of the view that the conduct complained of does not contravene the Competition Act.

2.7   Muhammad Randeree obo The Contact Lens Club Optometrists Inc. v Alcon

Laboratories (SA) (Pty) Ltd

 
The Commission is of the view that the conduct complained of does not contravene the
Competition Act.
 

 
Issued by The Competition Commission of South Africa