Tag: CAK

Kenyan Competition Law and the Enforcement of Buyer Power- a Step in the Right Direction?

Posted on by Editor

By Jemma Muller and Keegan Sullivan

The Competition Tribunal (“Tribunal”) recently handed down a precedent-setting decision in the case of Majid Al Futtaim Hypermarkets Limited vs Competition Authority of Kenya and Orchards Limited which will not only set the scene on how the competition authorities will tackle the enforcement and assessment of buyer power in Kenya but will also have substantial consequences for retailers in Kenya.

In casu Orchards Limited (“Orchards”) alleged that Majid Al Futtaim Hypermarkets Limited (“Majid”) abused its buyer power. Majid is the operator of the supermarket “Carrefour”, which is supplied with probiotic yoghurts by Orchards. Majid was alleged to have abused its buyer power by: transferring commercial risks to Orchards; refusing to receive Orchards’ goods for reasons which could not be ascribed to Orchards; unilaterally terminating or de-listing the commercial relationship without notice and for no justified reason; applying rebates and listing fees marked as discounts; and requiring Orchards to deploy staff as its own cost.

The Tribunal ultimately upheld the Competition Authority of Kenya’s (“CAK”) judgment in finding, inter alia, that Carrefour abused its buyer power in relation to Orchards. While the Tribunal’s decision brings much-needed clarity on various issues, in particular how it will conduct its assessment of buyer power, which represents an area in competition law that has historically been unregulated, the assessment itself appears to only brush the surface in an analysis which typically (and with regard to comparative jurisdictions) necessitates a robust and thorough analysis.

The Commission, in reaching its decision vis-à-vis the existence and abuse of buyer power, based its decision on the Competition Act No 12 (“Act”), the Buyer Power Guidelines under part III of the Act, and international best practice. Section 24(2B) of the Act stipulates that the authority, in determining buyer power, must take into consideration:

“a) the nature and determination of contract terms;

b) the payment requested for access to infrastructure; and

c) the price paid to suppliers”

Section 24(2D) of the Act stipulates that buyer power means:

“…the influence exerted by an undertaking or group of undertakings in the position of a purchaser of a product or service to obtain from a supplier more favorable terms, or to impose a long-term opportunity cost including harm or withheld benefit which, if carried out, would significantly be disproportionate to any resulting long-term cost to the undertaking or group of undertakings.”

Of particular concern is the Tribunal’s approach and rationale in determining whether Majid had buyer power and whether it had abused its buyer power. Importantly, the Tribunal appears to be jumping the gun so to speak in expressing that “…the influence of power of the buyer becomes evident when the buyer engages in the offending conduct” and therefore, “by engaging in conduct which amounts to abuse of buyer power, there’s buyer power”. (our emphasis)

According to the Tribunal, the Act defines buyer power by reference to its effects. In casu, “abuse” was evidenced by, inter alia, declining to renegotiate terms, onerous rebates and listing requirements, and the refusal to take delivery of products that were delivered. This represents a notable departure from traditional competition law assessments of buyer power in various respects. In South Africa, for example, the assessment first centres around the existence of buyer power (which requires the buyer to be dominant), followed by whether there has been an abuse of that buyer power. Michael-James Currie from the Primerio International team notes that the Tribunal has essentially put the cart before the horse and notes that astute competition law counselling requires these trends and policy shifts to be well considered.

By engaging in what appears to be an ex-post assessment, the Tribunal’s judgment does not provide much insight or guidance to parties on how to ensure their conduct is aligned with the relevant provisions or how to negotiate trading terms common to commercial practice without facing potential accusations of abuse of buyer power.

Precedent on “buyer power” is scarce and therefore the precedent set by the Tribunal on the matter is of considerable importance both in Kenya and throughout Africa. When viewed comparatively the legislative framework governing “buyer power” in South Africa differs from the Tribunal’s judgment mainly on the requirement of “dominance”.

Section 8(4)(a) of South Africa’s recently amended Competition Act provides;

“It is prohibited for a dominant firm in a sector designated by the Minister in terms of paragraph (d) to directly or indirectly, require from or impose on a supplier that is a small and medium business or a firm controlled or owned by historically disadvantaged persons, unfair:

(i) prices; or (ii) other trading conditions.”

Contrastingly, the Buyer Power Guidelines under Kenyan law state:

“It is not necessary for the buyer to have a dominant position in the market. Although the provisions of abuse of buyer power are included under the provisions of abuse of dominant position, when assessing conduct that amounts to abuse of buyer power, proof of dominance is not a mandatory criteria.”

Additionally, the Tribunal did not undertake a robust assessment of the relevant market, or an analysis of potential foreclosure concerns, consumer welfare or efficiency. Rather, and instead of focusing on anti-competitive effects (which jurisdictions such as South Africa undertake), the Tribunal appeared to be more concerned with fairness to suppliers.

What remains to be seen is how the Tribunal will distinguish between, inter alia, those buyers who extract favourable trading terms by virtue of being dominant in the market vs those buyers who are not, without first undertaking a comprehensive assessment of the buyer’s position in the market.

This judgment, being the Tribunal’s first in relation to the abuse of buyer power, will shape the way in which buyer power will be assessed in Kenya. As such, it is vital that the competition authorities provide comprehensive guidance and much needed certainty to businesses.

Single Brush Stroke Stops Paints Cartel in its Tracks

Posted on by Editor

Three years after an intricate East-African antitrust saga involving global European and Asian paint manufacturers, the industry is in the region’s competition-law news again.

By Andreas Stargard

Upon receiving allegations, in 2018, of cartel-like practices among paint manufacturers and undisclosed distributors, the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) launched an investigation into the companies suspected of breaching competition rules. These investigations later uncovered that four firms, namely: Crown Paints, Basco Products Limited, Kansai Plascon and Galaxy Paints were deemed guilty of collusion and price-fixing, subjecting the purchasers to unreasonably high prices for various paint brands. The CAK has since revealed its findings to the Kenyan Parliament.

Crown Paints has a flagship brand called DuraCoat, which includes paint products for both interior and exterior finishing (painting and waterproofing). Dura Brands’ exposed collusion with the other three companies sparked fears that consumers had been buying these products at artificially inflated prices. This is particularly significant given that Crown Paints is listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange and is a heavyweight in the local Kenyan paints market, with further regional subsidiaries in Uganda and Tanzania (all COMESA member states).

Ruth Mosoti, Primerio Ltd.’s Kenyan competition practitioner, notes that the “CAK ultimately found that all four companies were in direct contravention of section 31 of the Competition Act, which addresses restrictive trade practices that prohibit companies from colluding with one another in order to determine product prices, as well as control when and to whom they will offer pricing discounts. The CAK alleges that these are all anti-competitive behaviors that are to the detriment of the consumer as well as other, outside competitors.”

In its Annual Report to Parliament, the CAK noted: “The investigations with respect to three other paint manufacturers and distributors were concluded in July 2019 with the Authority making a preliminary finding that the parties were involved in an anti-competitive agreement on prices, discount structure and transport charges.”

In line with section 36(c) and (d) of the Act, the CAK is entitled to impose financial penalties “to remedy or reverse the infringement or the effects thereof” which may span “up to ten percent of the immediately preceding year’s gross annual turnover in Kenya of the undertaking or undertakings in question”.

Of the four Companies, Basco Products Limited was the only company that did not challenge the CAK’s preliminary ruling and paid a penalty amount of Sh20.799 million. The company further agreed to abstain from committing any similar breaches in the future. While the other subject companies initially appealed the decision handed down by the CAK, AfricanAntitrust.com editorial staff have now learned that up to 3 of the accused firms have opted to settle, having withdrawn their appeals.

COMESA

It is also pivotal to note that on the 25th of February 2021, the COMESA Competition Commission (CCC) issued a cautionary note specifically pertaining to the consequences of forming artificial barriers to free trade, such as collusive practices and other horizontal agreements hindering competition.

The CCC — in its recent bid to become a fully-fledged competition enforcement agency that investigates not only merger activity (as it had done primarily so far) but also pursues hard-core antitrust offences such as cartels — made reference to Article 16 of the Regulations, prohibiting “all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which: (a) may affect trade between Member States; and (b) have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the Common Market”.

The Kansai paint allegations described above would fit the bill, but we shall see what cartel matters the CCC will pursue going forward, and in which industry segments… The CCC has stated that it “…will work closely with the national competition authorities in the Member States to ensure that offenders are detected, investigated and punished”. Furthermore, there is particular focus on “hard enforcement through screening, detection, investigation and punishment of offenders”.

Antitrust enforcer to allow self-assessment of competitor collaborations amidst pandemic

Posted on by Editor

Following the (thus far rarely used) “Block Exemption” procedure under Section 30 (2) of the Kenyan Competition Act, the Competition Authority of Kenya (“CAK”) has proposed a new set of draft Guidelines as to competitor collaborations during the COVID-19 pandemic, so as to assist with the country’s economic recovery efforts. It specifies five (5) focus sectors, namely Manufacturing, Private Healthcare, Aviation, Travel & Hospitality, and Health Research. The Guidelines are ostensibly inapplicable to firms that engage in economic activity outside these five sectors.

Download the draft version of the PCBEG hereDownload

In issuing its soon-to-be finalized guidance, the CAK wishes to provide “direction to undertakings in making a self-assessment as to whether the agreements, decisions or practices which they intend entering into will qualify for block exemption within the Covid-19 Economic Recovery Context without the need to seek the Authority’s intervention.” (A.(4))

A key aspect, in the view of antitrust litigator Andreas Stargard, is the renewed attention given to “public-interest factors” in competition law.

He believes that this concession to non-traditional competition-law theory is “necessitated by the broad economic havoc COVID-19 has wrought, including on historically peripheral-to-antitrust aspects such as overall employment, public health, en masse business closures, and the like, which would normally not be highly relevant factors in the strict sense of conducting a rigorous competition-law analysis.”

Stargard continues that “Condition III of the CAK’s so-called ‘Self-Assessment Principles‘ expressly highlights this element, namely forcing firms to evaluate whether their proposed collaboration with competitive entities is ‘in the public interest, such as creation of employment’,” citing para. 11(vii) of the draft Block Exemption Guidelines on Certain Covid-19 Economic Recovery Priority Sectors.

The CAK’s proposal thus strongly echoes what its regional sister authority, the COMESA Competition Commission (“CCC”) openly discussed as early as July of last year. As we wrote in our assessment of the official CCC staff’s thoughts on competition enforcement amidst the pandemic in 2020:

The concept of non-competition factors (i.e., the public-interest element) was also raised, as there is a “growing debate on whether the pandemic may necessitate changes in [the] substantive assessment of mergers, e.g., towards more lenient consideration of failing firms.”

As Andreas Stargard observes, “just as COVID-19 is truly global, Kenya and COMESA are likewise not alone in their quest to master the difficult balancing act between sufficiently enforcing their domestic or regional antitrust laws versus allowing reasonable accommodations to be made for necessary competitor collaborations in light of the pandemic’s impact. Indeed, other enforcers have also made accommodations for such unusual collaborative efforts, given the emergency nature of the pandemic.”

In the U.S., the federal antitrust agencies have issued analogous guidance for competitors, issuing a joint guidance document specifically on health-care providers collaborating on necessary public-health initiatives. What stands out is the agencies’ express invitation for health-care players to take advantage of the (now-expedited to 7 days’ turnaround time) business-review/opinion-letter procedures.   Mr. Stargard notes however that, unlike the Kenyan proposal of “self-assessment“ by the affected entities, the American approach still necessitates an affirmative approach of the enforcers by the parties, seeking official sanctioning of their proposed cooperation by submitting a detailed explanation of the planned conduct, together with its rationale and expected likely effects.

By way of further example, in Canada, as the OECD notes, the government “has developed a ‘whole-of-government action’ based on seven guiding principles including collaboration. This principle calls on all levels of government and stakeholders to work in partnership to generate an effective and coherent response. These principles build on lessons learned from past events, particularly the 2003 SARS outbreak, which led to dedicated legislation, plans, infrastructure, and resources to help ensure that the country would be well prepared to detect and respond to a future pandemic outbreak.”

New Antitrust Whistleblower Reward Scheme: Are ‘Paltry’ Rewards & Anonymity Enough?

Posted on by Editor

As of January 1st, 2021, Kenya’s competition-law enforcer, the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK), started benefitting from its new “Informant Reward Scheme” (IRS). The IRS encourages “confidential informants” — often also referred to as “whistleblowers” — privy to inside information about antitrust offenses to come forward and report the illicit conduct to the Authority.

The IRS incentivizes informants with promises of anonymity as well as — rather modest, as we will see — monetary rewards: the CAK vows to maintain the confidentiality of the informant’s identity, and provides for up to Sh1,000,000 (approximately US$9,100 at today’s Fx rate).

Andreas Stargard, a competition lawyer active on the African continent, has delved more deeply into the CAK’s enabling “Guidelines” document, trying to ascertain the precise contours of the IRS program. He reports as follows:

AfricanAntitrust.com: “Who is eligible to participate in the IRS?”

Andreas Stargard: “What we know from the implementing Guidelines, and also from Director General Kariuki‘s speech on the IRS, is that only third parties or those individuals playing merely a remote and peripheral role in relation to the anti-competitive conduct are eligible to benefit from the IRS. This means that a 3rd-party customer, or a non-executive employee such as a secretary or copy clerk of the offending company, may report wrongdoing under the IRS.”

AAT: “What about insiders with executive authority, then?”

Stargard: “Similar to Western countries’ antitrust regimes, those individuals can still report illicit conduct by their employers, but they would have to resort to the Kenyan leniency process as opposed to the Informant Reward Scheme.”

AAT: “Understood. Are there other, similar whistleblower schemes in existence?”

Stargard: “Yes. We recently held a very timely webinar with leading international and African experts on the topic of whistleblowing, which I moderated. A recording of it is available on the web. Whistleblowing has become an important piece of the enforcement puzzle for many governmental authorities around the globe, not only on competition issues. In Kenya, specifically, President Kenyatta recently doubled the rewards for tax-fraud whistleblowers, who are now entitled to receive up to Sh5,000,000 ($45,000), and the country’s revenue service implemented the so-called iWhistle portal to allow informants to report tax fraud anonymously.”

AAT: “Speaking of money, what is your take on the amount of the offered reward under the terms of the IRS?”

Stargard: “Frankly speaking, one million Kenyan shillings is a paltry sum. I cannot comprehend how reporting a competition-law violation such as a price-fixing cartel that may cost the Kenyan economy and its consumers billions in losses is deserving of 5-times less reward than an informant reporting an individual’s tax fraud to the revenue service, which may cause significantly less injury to the government purse than an international cartel of corporates…”

AAT: “Strong words.”

Stargard: “I’m serious. Compare and contrast the meager sum of not even US$10,000 maximum IRS reward with the potential 5-year prison sentence liability for executives convicted of collusion! There is simply no comparison…”

AAT: “In a perfect world, what would you change about the Kenyan whistleblower scheme?”

Stargard: “If I had had any input into the process of devising the IRS Guidelines, I would have ensured that the maximum reward amount be commensurate with the economic harm and financial damage done by cartels — in short, I would raise the IRS reward to an un-capped straight-up percentage portion of the fines recovered by the CAK. The more, the better for everyone.”

AAT: “Do you have any parting words or final observations on the IRS program for our readers?”

Stargard: “Well, for starters, it is not too late to implement changes to the regime. The CAK (and the legislature, to the extent necessary) can easily increase the maximum reward, as I proposed earlier. I am certain that it would yield better results than the current Sh1m cap, which can easily be ‘outbid’ by an already-corrupt employer, seeking to ‘buy’ its employees’ loyalty! So, Mr. Kariuki, if you’re reading this interview, I’d strongly suggest considering an increase in the reward.

Secondly, from our international experience, we know one thing about ‘secret’ informant schemes: One key element of any successful whistleblower regime (besides ensuring adequate rewards) is the strictest maintenance of confidentiality of the informant’s identity. I realize that section ‘F’ of the Guidelines assures the public that anonymity will be guaranteed and that the CAK will ‘take utmost care to ensure that the identity of the confidential informant is not disclosed.’ However, as an attorney, I can only say that the proof is in the pudding. We will have to wait for the first proceedings pursuant to IRS-provided reports, in order to determine whether or not the whistleblowers’ anonymity will indeed be preserved successfully in practice. That said, I look forward to advising clients on the many issues that are likely going to arise from the Scheme!”

AAT: “Thank you for your time and insights on this new development!”

CAK Director General Wang’ombe Kariuki

Kariuki gets World Bank advisor post

Posted on by Editor

Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) Director-General Francis Wang’ombe Kariuki, MBS, will serve on the panel and contribute to its annual publication, the “World Development Report” for the upcoming calendar year. An archive of the Bank’s prior Reports is available for review here.

The Kenyan WallStreet publication quotes Kariuki as saying:

“The appointment takes cognizance of the fact that competition law enforcement has a role to play in poverty alleviation and that data is a highly-prized asset among companies, which can be leveraged for [either] development or socioeconomic harm. … Private firms may use data to deter the entry of upcoming firms, thereby limiting or preventing competition to the detriment of the consumers, specifically eroding their purchasing power and choice.”

Kariuki is a former COMESA Competition Commission Board member and a founding member and first chairman of the African Competition Forum.

Competition Enforcement Update – Eastern & Southern Region

Posted on by Editor

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.

Antitrust exemption regime: Value-add or underutilized?

Posted on by Editor

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.

Posted on by andreasstargard

(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.