Competition Enforcement Update – Eastern & Southern Region

COMESA

The COMESA Competition Commission (CCC) has vowed to develop a system which will allow the CCC to have better oversight (to in turn ensure effective enforcement) over anti-competitive behaviour in member states.

This follows extensive research conducted by the CCC’s which indicates that anti-competitive practices are increasingly prevalent throughout its member states and is causing consumer harm.

George Lipimile, CEO of the CCC says that while protective measures put in place by national governments (aimed at shielding their companies from competition) is a serious threat to the region as cartels are prevalent is almost all sectors of the economy.

The CCC has also singled out the banking sector, stating that: “[w]e [CCC] have seen quite a lot of abuse in terms of non-disclosure of critical information to consumers”.

Andreas Stargard, antitrust lawyer at Primerio Ltd., attributes the increase in anti-competitive behaviour in the region to a lack of awareness of consumers’ rights groups to recourse under competition laws. “Antitrust is a comparatively new and developing phenomenon in most of the COMESA member states, and it will take time for local authorities to increase public awareness around the benefits of antitrust to consumers”, he says. “One way to increase such awareness is, of course, closer engagement of private legal consultants as well as media, whether online, print, or radio and television.”

The CCC has vowed to intensify efforts to increase awareness within member states and to ensure effective and robust enforcement of competition laws in the region.

KENYA
The Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) has rejected a study (presented at the National Assembly Committee on Communication, Information and Innovation) by the Communications Authority which aims to introduce price capping in the telecommunications sector as a means to ‘remedy’ high concentration in the market.

In dismissing the study, the CAK Director General Kariuki Wang’ombe stated that “[i]t is important to highlight that dominance is not an illegality. What is an illegality is the abuse of dominance position. The intervention of a regulator should be informed by abuse of dominance position.”

Ruth Mosoti, a leading Kenyan competition practitioner, notes that the CAK, in an effort to steer clear of being considered a pricing regulator, “proposed that the Communications Authority focus on ensuring the sharing of resources by dominant firms (so as to ease barriers to entry and reduce switching costs so as to facilitate the entry and participation of competitors in the market) as opposed to setting a price cap.”

The CAK further urged the Assembly Committee to facilitate co-operation between the CAK and the Communications Authority in order to ensure effective regulation in the sector. “I request this committee to come up with a way of compelling the regulators to work together for the betterment of this sector. It might not be easy for only one regulator to regulate this sector. This issue is more of personal relationship,” Kariuki said.

Safricom Kenya CEO, in response, expressed his concerns stating that “[t]he operators who are seeking these interventions today will have been taught not to invest but instead to rely upon the infrastructure that is built by others. They will have been taught not to innovate as innovations will be served to them on a silver platter”.

NAMIBIA

Following an announcement by the Namibia Taxi and Transport Union (NTTU) that taxi fares will increase (following approval of its members at a joint meeting), the Namibia Competition Commission (NCC) warned the taxi operators to follow due process in seeking to introduce joint price increases to avoid falling foul of the Namibia Competition Act (Competition Act).

In terms of the Namibia Road Traffic and Transport Act (Transport Act), the Transport Board may endorse a collusive price increase in the industry (of not more than 10%). The NTTU has, however, announced that despite their understanding that the Transport Act stipulates that any fare increase should not be more than 10%, they will continue to implement the 50% price increase, with or without approval.

The NCC has, therefore, warned taxi operators that any collusive price increase (which is contrary to the Transport Act) will amount to a contravention of the Competition Act. The NNC released a statement saying “[t]axi operators who collusively and intentionally impose fixed taxi fare increases without following the due process set out in the Road Transport Act will render themselves liable in terms of the Competition Act and thereby attract a formal investigation which may lead to punitive civil and/or criminal sanctions”.

The NCC has previously resolved not to investigate Bus and Taxi Associations for price fixing, provided that such conduct was authorised under the Transport Act.

John Oxenham, also a director at Primerio Ltd. notes that the passenger transport is sector is increasingly considered a priority sector in Africa with Namibia’s neighbouring country, South Africa, having commenced a market inquiry into the public passenger transport sector which, inter alia, will assess the impact of ride-hail apps such as Uber on competition in the traditional taxi sector.

Advertisements

Antitrust exemption regime: Value-add or underutilized?

Professional Associations in Kenya not Making Use of Exemption Provisions a Major Concern for Competition Authority

Continuing in our series about the burgeoning East African Community and its nascent antitrust regime, AAT contributing author and Pr1merio attorney, Elizabeth Sisenda, writes a second installment covering the exemption regime of the region and its (surprising) underutilized status to date.

Elizabeth Sisenda, LL.M (London) LL.B (CUEA) PGD Law (KSL)

Price-fixing in Kenya is prohibited under the Competition Act No. 12 of 2010 under Section 21 (3) (a) which provides that any agreements, decisions or concerted practices which directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading condition is prohibited under the Act, unless they are exempt in accordance with the provisions of Section D of Part III.

Part III B further prohibits price-fixing by trade associations under Section 22 (b) (i) which provides that the making, indirectly or directly, of a recommendation by a trade association to its members or to any class of its members which relates to the prices charged, or to be charged by such members, or to any class of members, or to the margins included in the prices, or to the pricing formula used in the calculation of those prices, constitutes a restrictive trade practice under the Act.

Section 29 (1) of the Act further outlines the rules for exemptions in respect of professional associations. It provides that a professional association whose rules contain a restriction that has the effect of preventing, distorting or lessening competition in a market must apply in writing or in the prescribed manner to the Competition Authority for an exemption. Sub-section (2) goes on to explain what factors the Authority considers in order to grant an exemption for a specified period. These include:

  • Maintenance of professional standards
  • Maintenance of the ordinary functioning of the profession
  • Internationally applied norms

Section 29 (5) further gives discretion to the Authority to revoke an exemption in respect of such rules or the relevant part of the rules, at any time, if the Authority considers that any rules, either wholly or in part, should no longer be exempt under this section. For instance, if they no longer promote consumer welfare or do not enhance standards in the profession.

Price setting concerns by Law Society of Kenya, LSK

kenyaProfessional fees for advocates in Kenya are set by the Chief Justice under the Advocates Act Chapter 16 of the Laws of Kenya. Part IX Section 44 provides that the Chief Justice may by order prescribe and regulate in such manner as he/she thinks fit the remuneration of advocates in respect of all professional business, whether contentious or non-contentious. Sub-section (2) also provides that the Chief Justice may prescribe a scale of rates of commission or percentage in respect of non-contentious business.

However, Section 45 provides that agreements in respect of remuneration may be made between the advocate and the client subject to permissible professional rules under section 46 of the Act. Therefore, as much as the Chief Justice may set professional fees under the Act, there is an opportunity for the advocate and the client to agree on professional fees subject to the Act. Moreover, a client has redress to apply to the courts under Section 45 (2) to set aside or vary such an agreement on grounds that it is harsh, unconscionable, exorbitant or unreasonable according to professional practice. The decision of the court on this matter is final.

The Chief Justice periodically revises the Advocates Remuneration Order which sets out the scale of professional legal fees. In doing so the Chief Justice considers factors such as inflation and the costs of providing legal fees. The Kenyan Advocates Remuneration Order was last revised upwards in 2014, increasing professional fees by 50%. The Order was last revised in 1997. Advocates had petitioned the Chief Justice to do so in order to enable them cope with tough economic conditions. Recently there was a public discourse on whether advocates should have set fees. Stakeholders argue that the Chief Justice’s decision to adjust fees may not be entirely objective because since he or she has qualifications in law, and could revert to the profession upon retirement from office.

LSK on the other had contends that the minimum fees help protect consumers from poor services, and it reduces the price wars that would occur without the scale of fees. Under the Advocates Act, charging below the set scale of fees amounts to undercutting. This is a professional offense that could result in the concerned advocate being suspended or struck off the roll. Moreover, any agreements or instruments prepared by the concerned advocate are liable to be invalidated by the courts.

The question arose among legal stakeholders as to whether the Authority could intervene in relation to the scale of professional fees under the provisions on price-fixing. The LSK chairperson recently commented that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Authority, as the Remuneration Order seeks to set minimum fees and not a fixed rate. However, it is clear from the provisions of Section 29 that any professional body whose rules, having regard to internationally applied standards, contain any restrictions which have the effect of preventing or substantially lessening competition in a market, must apply to the Competition Authority for an exemption of the said rules.

Price Setting Concerns by Association of Kenya Reinsurers, AKR

The Association of Kenya Reinsurers is regulated by the Kenya Reinsurance Corporation Limited Act, Cap 487A of the Laws of Kenya. The Association consists of the following companies: Kenya Reinsurance Corporation Limited, Africa Reinsurance Corporation Limited, East Africa Reinsurance Company, Zep – Re and Continental Reinsurance Limited. The Authority recently investigated this association for price fixing following a complaint lodged from the National Intelligence Service (NIS). The association, through a circular dated 2, October 2013, had advised its members on the minimum applicable premiums upon renewal of NIS Group Life Scheme for 2013/2014. Insurance companies are required by their regulator Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA) to use an independent actuary to come up with their own individual premium rates, which they file with the IRA for approval.

The association is required under the Competition Act Section 29 (1) to apply in the prescribed manner to the Authority for an exemption in relation to any anti-competitive rules. Section 22 (2) (b) also prohibits the making, directly or indirectly, of a recommendation by a trade association to its members, or to any class of its members which relates to the prices charged, or to be charged by such members, or any such class of members, or to the margins included in the prices, or to the prices, or to the pricing formula used in the calculation of those prices. Therefore, the Association is legally bound to seek the approval of the Authority in order to set a minimum fee for any particular group of consumers. Moreover, the association may be in violation of Section 21 (f) of the Competition Act which prohibits any decisions by associations of undertakings which applies dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage, unless they are exempt in accordance with the provisions of Section D of Part III.

Conclusion

In conclusion, professional associations in Kenya should take advantage of the provisions of Section 29 of the Competition Act which allow professional associations to apply rules whose effect is the lessening of competition in the market, provided they are applied to enhance professional standards, the ordinary functioning of the profession or internationally applied norms for the benefit of consumers.

 

 

Competition Authority of Kenya wrests right to control M&A from COMESA.

(See also our prior reporting here: https://africanantitrust.com/2013/01/31/kenyan-competition-authoritys-comesa-jurisdiction-questions/)

COMESA old flag colorkenya
The Competition Authority of Kenya (“CAK”) has won the first round in its apparent jurisdictional battle against COMESA to control acquisition of shares, interest or assets among local firms, ending two months of uncertainty as to who the regulatory authority was for dealmakers. Kenyan Attorney General Githu Muigai has given the CAK the authority to act as the sole agency with the mandate to administer and clear local Kenyan mergers and acquisitions.

This power purports to shield, at least temporarily, local firms from the COMESA competition laws. Under the multi-state competition regime, firms engaging in certain mergers and acquisitions with an effect in two or more member states are required to seek clearance from COMESA’s Competition Commission, a process that comes with significant costs and time delays not expected to the same extent with the CAK procedure.