Sekunjalo Faces Irreparable Harm Amid Nedbank Bank Account Closure Dispute

The Competition Tribunal has become the latest battleground in the long-standing dispute between Sekunjalo Investment Holdings and Nedbank. Sekunjalo is seeking an interim interdict to compel Nedbank to reopen its accounts, warning of severe consequences, including job losses and business closures, if its banking facilities remain inaccessible.

The Case for Interim Relief

Representing Sekunjalo, Advocate Katlego Monareng argued that denying the group access to banking services would:

• Disrupt business operations, especially in sectors like fishing, ICT, and tourism.
• Lead to significant job losses, with companies like Premier Fishing, employing 1,000 people, being particularly vulnerable.
• Exclude Sekunjalo from the mainstream economy, making it difficult to operate in markets with high barriers to entry.

Monareng emphasized that access to banking is essential for any company operating in South Africa. He dismissed alternative payment systems as financially unfeasible and highlighted the Competition Commission’s findings that banks, including Nedbank, had colluded to exclude Sekunjalo from the market—a practice deemed harmful to competition and employment.

Nedbank’s Defense

In response, Greta Engelbrecht, senior counsel for Nedbank, countered Sekunjalo’s claims, arguing:

1. No evidence of collusion: Engelbrecht maintained that Sekunjalo failed to demonstrate collusion among banks during the 15 months leading to the closures.
2. Reputational risks: While Sekunjalo argued that no harm had been proven, Nedbank emphasized that its decisions were influenced by legitimate reputational concerns.
3. Applicant-specific impact: Each of the 28 companies in Sekunjalo’s application needed to prove how the account closures specifically affected them.

Engelbrecht also dismissed allegations of collusion as mere “follow the leader” behaviour, which she argued does not violate competition law.

The outcome of this case could have significant repercussions for South Africa’s economy and its highly concentrated banking sector:

• Job security: Sekunjalo’s businesses span industries employing thousands, with potential ripple effects on supply chains.
• Economic inclusion: Monareng argued that barring a major player like Sekunjalo from accessing banking services risks normalizing economic exclusion.
• Competition policy: The Tribunal’s ruling may set a precedent for how banks interact with controversial clients, balancing reputational risks with broader economic impacts.

The Competition Tribunal is now deliberating on Sekunjalo’s application for interim relief. This ruling will not only determine Sekunjalo’s immediate future but could also influence broader debates on the responsibilities of South Africa’s banking sector and its role in fostering an inclusive economy.

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com