Commission challenges Premier–RFG merger approval over Tulbagh disclosure

The Competition Commission has challenged the approval of Premier Group’s merger with RFG Holdings over an alleged failure to disclose discussions about the possible closure of RFG’s Tulbagh canning facility. The Commission’s announcement was listed on October 7, 2026. Premier disputed the allegation in a response published the following day.

What the Commission alleges

The Commission alleges that Premier and RFG discussed a potential closure before the merger was approved but did not disclose those discussions during the review. It says the companies had been asked about their post-merger plans for manufacturing facilities. These are allegations, not findings established by the material provided.

According to Premier’s announcement, the Commission is seeking either revocation of the merger approval followed by refiling and reconsideration, or amended approval conditions. It is also seeking urgent interim relief intended to preserve the Tulbagh facility’s ability to operate as a cannery. The Competition Tribunal’s case record shows that it approved the merger subject to conditions on March 6, 2026.

Premier’s response and the commercial stakes

Premier disputes the Commission’s characterization. It says there was no plan to close the facility at the time of merger approval and that it intends to oppose the application. The opposing accounts leave the disclosure question contested.

The facility has significance beyond the merging companies. The Commission says Tulbagh is one of only two fruit-canning facilities in South Africa and serves about 200 Western Cape fruit growers. Its ability to operate as a cannery is therefore relevant to growers as well as to the companies involved in the merger dispute.

Premier also reported that its consultation process had concluded: 407 of 409 affected employees accepted voluntary severance agreements, while the other two remained employed within the group. It said no retrenchments would be implemented. Those figures describe the reported employment outcome; they do not resolve the Commission’s allegation about what was disclosed during the merger review.