1
COMPETITION TRIBUNALOF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No.: LM135Dec24
In the matter between:
Clientèle Limited Primary Acquiring Firm
and
Emerald Life Proprietary Limited
Primary Target Firm
Introduction
[1] On 27 February 2025, the Competition Tribunal (“Tribunal”) unconditionally
approved a large merger wherein Clientèle Limited (“Clientèle”) intends to acquire
the entire issued share capital of Emerald Life Proprietary Limited (“Emerald
Life”). Post-transaction, Clientèle will exercise sole control over Emerald Life.
Parties and their activities
Primary Acquiring Firm
[2] The primary acquiring firm is Clientèle, a public company whose shares are widely
held and traded through the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Clientèle is not
controlled by any one firm.
Panel : M Mazwai (Presiding Member)
: A Ndoni (Tribunal Member)
: G Budlender (Tribunal Member)
Heard on : 27 February 2025
Order issued on : 27 February 2025
Reasons issued on : 24 March 2025
REASONS FOR DECISION
~
competition tribunal
SOUTH AFRICA
2
[3] Clientèle controls Clientèle Life Assurance Company Limited (“Clientèle Life”),
1Life Insurance (RF) Limited (“1Life”), Clientèle General Insurance Limited
(“Clientèle General”) and Direct Rewards Proprietary Limited.
[4] Clientèle Life wholly controls Clientèle Properties North Proprietary Limited,
Clientèle Properties South Proprietary Limited, and Clientèle Properties East
Proprietary Limited.
[5] Clientèle and all the firms that it controls are referred to as the “Acquiring Group”.
[6] The Acquiring Group, through Clientèle Life and 1Life, is active in the provision of
life insurance products to retail consumers. Clientèle Life and 1Life are licensed
for various classes of life insurance business in terms of the Insurance Act No 18
of 2017. The Acquiring Group also provides a limited range of non -life insurance
products through Clientèle General.
Target Firm
[7] The primary target firm is Emerald Life which is wholly owned and controlled by
Mr André van der Westhuizen (“Mr van der Westhuizen”).
[8] Emerald Life does not control any firm.
[9] Emerald Life is a licensed life microinsurer that provides funeral insurance cover
to individual retail customers through its brick-and-mortar offices and call centres.
Transaction
[10] Clientèle intends to acquire 100% of the issued share capital of Emerald Life from
Mr van der Westhuizen. Post implementation of the proposed transaction,
Clientèle will exercise sole control over Emerald Life.
Rationale
[11] The Acquiring Group submits that the proposed transaction represents a unique
opportunity to acquire a licensed life microinsurer in order to expand its customer
profile. The acquisition is expected to enhance scale and create long-term value
3
for all stakeholders. The Acquiring Group submits that the proposed transaction
will strengthen operations, improve efficiency, and drive future growth.
[12] Emerald Life submits that the proposed transaction will allow its shareholder to
realise value from its investment while ensuring future growth. Emerald Life
considers Clientèle a suitable acquirer capable of expanding its business. The
proposed transaction aligns with strategic goals, ensuring continuity, stability, and
long-term success for employees and stakeholders.
Competition assessment
Overlaps
[13] The Competition Commission (“Commission”) considered the activities of the
merger parties and found that the proposed transaction results in horizontal
overlaps as Clientèle Life, 1Life, and Emerald Life provide life insurance and
funeral cover products.
Market definition
[14] In its assessment of the relevant product market the Commission considered the
distinctions made in Old Mutual Insure Ltd1 where the Tribunal accepted that life
and non -life insurance are distinct markets. The Tribunal recognized a broad
market for life insurance while also acknowledging narrower segments.
[15] In the present transaction, the Commission submitted that the effect of the
proposed transaction be assessed in the (i) broad market for the provision for life
insurance; and (ii) narrow market for the provision of funeral cover.
[16] In respect of the geographic scope of the product markets, the Commission
followed the Tribunal’s approach in the aforementioned case and assessed the
geographic market on a national basis.
[17] In light of the above, we consider the effects of the proposed transaction in the
following markets, the:
1 Old Mutual Insure Ltd v ONE Financial Services Holdings (Pty) Ltd (LM082Sep21)
4
17.1. broad market for the provision for life insurance in South Africa; and
17.2. narrow market for the provision of funeral cover in South Africa.
Impact on competition
[18] The Commission found that in the broad market for the provision for life insurance
in South Africa, the merger parties would have a post -merger market share of
approximately %, with an accretion of %. The merger parties will
continue to face competition from competitors such as Momentum Metropolitan
Life, Discovery Life, Guardrisk, and Hollard.
[19] In respect of the narrow market for the provision of funeral cover in South Africa,
merger parties would have a post-merger market share of approximately %,
with an accretion of %.
[20] There are several firms active in the narrow market for the provision of funeral
cover including 3Sixty Life Ltd, Assupol Life Ltd, AVBOB, Bidvest Life Ltd, Old
Mutual Group, Sanlam and King Price Life Insurance Ltd.
[21] The merger parties note a vertical relationship between the parties as Emerald
Life provides policy administration services to 1Life. The Commission did not
address this in its recommendation, however given the low market shares we are
of the view that no foreclosure concerns would arise.
[22] Given the relatively low market shares of the merged entity, the minimal market
share accretions, together with the presence of several competitors, we find that
the proposed transaction is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition
in any relevant market.
Creeping mergers
[23] The Commission conducted a creeping merger assessment to determine
possibilities of increased concentration levels in the funeral cover product market.
[24] The Commission submitted that over the past five years, Clientèle has effected
two transactions in the insurance market (life or non-life), the current merger and
1111 1111
1111
1111
5
the 1Life acquisition 2. The Commission found that Clientèle’s market share in
relation to the provision of funeral insurance products remains low. Given this, the
Commission found that the proposed transaction does not result in any increased
concentration in the affected market.
[25]
[26] Accordingly, the Commission concluded that there was no creeping merge r
concern as the mergers do not result in increased concentration in the affected
markets. We have no basis to disagree with the Commission’s conclusions.
Public interest
Effect on employment
[27] The merger parties submitted that the proposed transaction will not have any
negative impact on employment and will not result in any retrenchments.
[28] The Commission contacted the employee representatives of the merger parties
and obtained confirmation that no employment concerns were raised in relation
to the proposed transaction.
[29] in light of the above, we conclude that the proposed merger is unlikely to raise
any employment concerns.
Promotion of greater spread of ownership
[30] The merg er parties submitted that the proposed merger would result in a
promotion of a greater spread of ownership by historically disadvantaged persons
("HDPs"). Clientèle has an HDP shareholding of 8.4%, while Emerald Life has
none. Consequently, the proposed transaction will result in an increase of HDP
ownership.
2 Clientele and 1Life Insurance: LM185Mar24.
[31] In light of the above, w e are of the view that the proposed transaction is unlikely
to have a negative impact on employmen t or the promotion of a greater spread of
ow nership.
[32] The proposed transaction does not raise any other public interest issues.
Third parties' views
[33] No third parties raised any concerns regarding the proposed transaction.
Conclusion
[34] For the reasons set out above, w e are satisfied that the proposed transaction is
unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen compe tition in the relevant markets.
Furthermore, the proposed merger does not raise any public interest concerns.
[35] We , therefore, approved the proposed transaction w ithout conditions.
24 March 2025
Date
Ms Andiswa Ndoni and Adv. Geoff Budlender SC concurring
Tribunal Case Manager:
For the Merger Parties:
For the Comm ission:
Theresho Galane
Chris Charter and Reece May of
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr and Burton Phillips of
Webber Wentzel
Reabetsw e Molotsi and Themba Mahlangu
6