{"id":849436,"date":"2026-01-30T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-30T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/?p=849436"},"modified":"2026-01-30T15:50:45","modified_gmt":"2026-01-30T13:50:45","slug":"r3-billion-blow-for-shoprite-and-pepkor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/business\/849436\/r3-billion-blow-for-shoprite-and-pepkor\/","title":{"rendered":"R3 billion blow for Shoprite and Pepkor"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Constitutional Court has dealt a major blow to Pepkor’s proposed acquisition of Shoprite’s furniture business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shoprite announced a proposed sale in September 2024, where Pepkor will acquire its furniture business for about R3 billion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pepkor, Africa’s largest clothing retailer, would scale up its bed, sofa and appliance business and boost its store coverage to 1,300 via the deal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The deal would include the Shoprite Furniture credit loan book and related insurance cell captive arrangements, the OK Furniture and House & Home retail brands, and the inventory and certain fixed assets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the time of the deal, Pepkor noted that its lifestyle business already operated over 900 retail stores in South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Eswatini.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Combining Shoprite Furniture with Pepkor Lifestyle will enable the group to scale up its supply chain, logistics, and financial services operations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It added that the lifestyle brand could instantly grow its customer base and retail footprint while integrating Shoprite Furniture operations into its existing logistics network. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Shoprite, the deal reflected its goal of streamlining its business to focus on its core strengths in groceries, while expanding its speciality clothing, baby, outdoor and pet stores. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court order <\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

However, the deal has not dealt a massive blow to either party following legal intervention by fellow furniture giant, The Lewis Group. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In December 2025, the Constitutional Court ruled in favour of Lewis’ participation in competition-related issues. The highest court in South Africa has now given further details on its decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case concerned Lewis’s attempt to intervene in the merger proceedings. The Competition Commission conditionally approved the merger, which the Competition Tribunal would then consider.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the proceedings, Lewis applied to intervene, contending that the merger could raise serious competition concerns for low- and medium-income furniture consumers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tribunal granted Lewis limited participatory rights, noting that Lewis had given a credible, merger-specific theory of harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lewis also provided that the Commission\u2019s investigation appeared insufficiently probed, especially in relation to local market overlaps, dynamics of store location and competitive constraints in the low-income furniture market. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lewis also had access to information that could meaningfully assist the tribunal in the matter. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Shoprite and Pepkor approached the Competition Appeal Court (CAC), arguing that Lewis had failed to demonstrate that the information was unique or otherwise unobtainable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It added that Lewis’ participation would result in a massive delay, and that the Tribunal had misconstued the legal test for intervention under the Competition Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The CAC upheld the appeal in early October 2025. However, Lewis’s appeal to the highest court in South Africa has resulted in a significant victory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following Lewis’s evidence, the ConCourt ruled that the tribunal was justified in concluding, by a carefully reasoned application, that the requirements for intervention had been satisfied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The tribunal admitted Lewis as a knowledgeable and comparable competitor and permitted participation on the basis that it could assist in understanding competitive dynamics and assessing unilateral theories of harm,” said the Concourt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The Tribunal granted intervention within a defined and curtailed scope, limited participation to specified competition issues, and refused intervention on beds and mattresses, buyer power and public interest.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Its order was carefully circumscribed, fact-specific, and consistent with established intervention jurisprudence.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The matter has now been returned to the Competition Tribunal, with Lewis allowed to intervene as a participant. A summary of the ruling can be found below: <\/p>\n\n\n\n