SAB Miller Africa & Asia Ltd & 2 Others v East African Breweries Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE |
| Judgment Date | 18 August 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 2140 (Comm) |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2009 FOLIO 992 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Date | 18 August 2009 |
[2009] EWHC 2140 (Comm)
Mr Justice Christopher Clarke
Case No: 2009 FOLIO 992
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Alain Choo-Choy QC & Nicholas Sloboda (instructed by Lovells) for the Applicants
David Oliver QC & Alec Haydon (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard) for the Respondents
Approved Judgment
Hearing dates: 4th, 5th & 6th August 2009
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
This is an application for injunctive relief pending further order of the Court or of the arbitration tribunal, which at the time of the hearing was yet to be appointed in order to determine the disputes between the parties.
The case concerns the production and distribution of beer in Tanzania. The battle is between very sizeable players. The applicants are Sabmiller Africa BV (“Sabma”) and its subsidiary Tanzania Breweries Ltd (“TBL”). Sabma, previously named South African Breweries International (Africa) B.V., is a subsidiary of SABMiller Plc. In 2002, as now, TBL was the market leader in the brewing market in Tanzania. It currently holds an 80–85% market share. Another major player in that market was and is Serengeti Breweries Ltd (“SBL”), TBL's most significant competitor. Kibo Breweries Ltd (“Kibo”) was another brewer in Tanzania. It had a brewery at Moshi. Kibo had only a minority share of the market and was unprofitable. Kibo was owned by East African Breweries Ltd (“EABL”), the respondent, a company in the group of companies headed by Diageo Plc. The SABMiller Plc and Diageo groups are two of the world's leading producers of alcoholic drinks.
In Kenya the positions were reversed. EABL owned Kenya Breweries Ltd (“KBL”). KBL was the market leader. Sabma owned Castle Brewing Kenya Ltd (“CBK”), which had a minority share of the market and a brewery at Thika. It, also, was unprofitable.
In 2002 Sabma and EABL decided to reorder their positions. In both Tanzania and Kenya the shares in the minority brewer (Kibo or CBK) were to be sold to TBL or EABL. In return TBL and KBL would issue 20% of their shares to the vendor of the minority brewer (EABL or Sabma). There would then be a brewing and distribution agreement whereby, in each country, the products of the group of which the vendor was part would be brewed and distributed under licence by the market leader. Each group would thereby cease their loss-making business and gain a reciprocal 20% share in the larger and more profitable former competitor in each territory.
This arrangement was effected, in each country, by three different agreements:
(i) a share purchase agreement (“SPA”);
(ii) a brewing and distribution agreement (“BDA”); and
(iii) a shareholders agreement (“SHA”).
All were dated 14 th May 2002.
Thus, in respect of Tanzania, under what I will call the “TBL SPA” EABL sold to TBL 100% of Kibo and TBL allotted 20% of its shares to EABL. Under what I will call the “TBL BDA” EABL appointed TBL to brew and distribute its products. An SHA between Sabma and EABL (the “TBL SHA”) governed the relationship between them as shareholders of TBL. Sabma owned 52.9% of the shares, EABL 20% and the Tanzanian Government and the public 27.1%.
Similar arrangements, mutatis mutandis, applied in Kenya, although the Company under the BDA in respect of which KBL was to be the Brewer was South African Breweries International (Finance) B.V.
The TBL BDA
By clause 3.1 of the TBL BDA the Company, i.e. EABL, granted to the Brewer, i.e. TBL, the sole and exclusive right during the Term to brew and/or handle the Products in the Territory. The Products were Pilsner lager, Pilsner Extra lager and Pilsner Ice lager, Tusker lager, Guinness Foreign Extra, Stout, Kibo Gold lager, and Malta Guinness, a non alcoholic beverage. The most significant of those is Tusker, a popular mainstream lager of medium strength. Pilsner is a strong mainstream lager.
TBL brews a considerable number of beers of its own in Tanzania including Kilimanjaro and Safari which are mainstream lagers, Castle Lager, and Castle Milk Stout (“CMS”) together with Eagle, an economy lager, and Ndovu Special Malt, a premium pale lager. Serengeti is another popular mainstream lager.
Under clause 5 TBL was to pay a royalty of 5% of the net value of the Products sold.
Clause 17 dealt with Duration and Termination. By clause 17.1 the agreement was to last for an initial period of five years from the effective date which I take to have been the date of the agreement or close thereto. That period came to an end in May 2007. Clause 17.1. provided for the agreement to be extended for a further period of five years in certain circumstances which have not occurred.
Clause 17.2. provided that the agreement should continue after the initial period of five years until either party gave at least 12 months written notice to the other.
Clause 17.3. provided for termination for fundamental breach in these terms :
“17.3. Notwithstanding clause 17.1.
a party (the “Innocent Party”) may terminate [the BDA] on written notice to the other (the “Defaulting Party”), if:
17.3.1.2 the Defaulting Party commits a fundamental breach of its obligations under [the BDA] …and, if the breach is capable of remedy, fails to remedy it within sixty days, following receipt of written notice from the Innocent Party specifying the breach and requiring its remedy.
The notice contemplated in clause 17.3.1.2 shall be given within sixty days after the expiry of the sixty day period referred to in cause 17.3.1.2…”
[Underlining added]
The effect of these provisions is that, in the case of a breach which is capable of remedy, the innocent party may terminate if:
(a) the defaulting party has committed a fundamental breach;
(b) the defaulting party has received from the innocent party a written notice specifying the breach and requiring its remedy;
(c) the defaulting party has failed to remedy the breach within 60 days; and
(d) the innocent party gives notice of termination within 60 days of the expiry of the former period.
Clause 17.4, to which I shall revert, provides for certain events to be deemed to be fundamental breaches.
The TBL BDA contained significant restrictions on EABL in the event that it came to an end. Clause 4.6 provides as follows:
“Save as permitted in terms of this agreement and subject to clauses 4.5 and 4.8, the Company undertakes that, until the later of:
4.6.1 the date on which … [the BDA] terminates; and
4.6.2 the expiry of the period of 180 days following the date (“Restraint Date”) on which EABL…. ceases:
4.6.2.1. to have the right to appoint a director of … [TBL] in terms of the TBL Shareholders Agreement; and
4.6.2.2 to be entitled to the minority protections contained in the TBL Shareholders Agreement,
for any reason (including, but without limitation, by reason of EABL exercising its right to waive such rights in terms of Clause 17 of the TBL Shareholders' Agreement) it will not, and will procure that no company forming part of the EABL group or Diageo group will, and it will use its best endeavours to procure that no director, officer or employee of … [EABL] or any other company forming part of the EABL group or Diageo group will:
4.6.2.3 whether as principal, agent, partner, representative, Controlling Shareholder, consultant or adviser or in any other similar capacity, be directly or indirectly interested in or engaged in any company, corporation, firm, business undertaking, trust, partnership, concern or other entity or association of any nature which directly or indirectly carries on the business of brewing and/or handling and/or importing any Specified Beverages1 (including the Products and Discontinued Products) in the Territory; or
4.6.2.4 knowingly distribute or sell any Specified Beverages to anyone outside the Territory where it has reasonable cause to believe that such Specified Beverages will be distributed or sold directly or indirectly in the Territory. If any such distributions or sales come to … [EABL's]… attention, it will use all reasonable endeavours, and will use all reasonable endeavours to procure that other companies forming part of the Diageo group use all reasonableendeavours, to enforce any rights or remedies it or they may have to prevent such distributions or sales.”
I call these “the Restraints”, a term which also covers the almost identical restrictions contained in the TBL SHA: see para 25 below. By clause 4.9 EABL acknowledged that the Restraints were “fair and reasonable as to the subject matter, area and duration and are reasonably necessary to protect the proprietary interests of [TBL] and [Sabma] and to maintain the goodwill of [TBL]“.
Clauses 4.13 and 4.14 provide that:
“4.13. A breach of any of the restraints stipulated in clauses 4. 6 or 4.7 shall entitle [TBL] or (Sabma), without prejudice to any other rights available to either of them in law and notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement, to apply to any court of competent jurisdiction for an interdict or injunction.
4.14 Subject to clause [4.8] the provisos of clauses 4.6 and 4.7 shall remain of full force and effect notwithstanding the termination of this agreement.”
It is apparent from these provisions that the Restraints do not cease because the agreement terminates. On the contrary they remain in effect until after the date of termination or, if longer, the expiry of the period of 180 days following the date on which EABL ceases to have the rights and entitlement specified in 4.6.2.1 and 4.6.2.2 (“the minority rights”)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maldives Airports Co Ltd and another v GMR Malé International Airport Pte Ltd
...to the decision of the English High Court in Sabmiller Africa BV and Tanzania Breweries Limited v East African Breweries Limited [2009] EWHC 2140 (Comm) (“Sabmiller”). In Sabmiller, the parties were breweries which entered into various share purchase, distribution and shareholders’ agreemen......
-
R (on the application of S&S Consulting Services (UK) Ltd) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
...AC 396 (at p. 407) were summarized by Christopher Clarke J., as he then was, in Sabmiller Africa BV v East African Breweries Ltd [2009] EWHC 2140 (Comm) (at paragraphs 47 and 48). As he explained, the “general approach” is for the court to ask itself “[whether] there is a serious question t......
-
R (on the application of the Governing Body of X) v Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills
...A.C. 396 (at p.407) were summarized by Christopher Clarke J., as he then was, in Sabmiller Africa B.V. v East African Breweries Ltd. [2009] EWHC 2140 (Comm) (at paragraphs 47 and 48). As he explained, the “general approach” is for the court to ask itself “[whether] there is a serious quest......
-
Maldives Airports Co Ltd and another v GMR Malé International Airport Pte Ltd
...to the decision of the English High Court in Sabmiller Africa BV and Tanzania Breweries Limited v East African Breweries Limited [2009] EWHC 2140 (Comm) (“Sabmiller”). In Sabmiller, the parties were breweries which entered into various share purchase, distribution and shareholders’ agreemen......