Mercantile Bank, a division of Capitec Bank Limited v Survé and Others; Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Survé and Others; Access Bank Limited v Survé and Others

Entities within the Sekunjalo Group, controlled by Dr Iqbal Survé, experienced termination of existing bank accounts, refusal to open new accounts, or reviews of their banking relationships by several major South African banks following the 2020 Mpati Commission report into the Public Investment Corporation. Alleging that this left them effectively ‘unbanked’, the Sekunjalo Group applied to the Competition Tribunal for interim relief, claiming that the banks’ conduct amounted to a concerted refusal to deal and an abuse of dominance in contravention of sections 4(1)(a), 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(d)(ii) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998. The Tribunal granted interim relief against eight banks. Three banks—Standard Bank, Mercantile Bank, and Access Bank—appealed and reviewed the interim order, contending that no prima facie case of anticompetitive conduct had been established and that their conduct was independently justified by regulatory and reputational risk considerations.

The appeal was upheld. The Competition Tribunal’s interim relief orders against Standard Bank, Mercantile Bank, and Access Bank were set aside.

The judgment clarifies the evidentiary and legal thresholds for interim relief in competition matters, particularly refusal-to-deal cases. It emphasises that parallel conduct in a concentrated market does not, without a clear theory of harm, establish a prima facie case of concerted practice. The decision reinforces disciplined application of section 4(1)(a) and guards against conflating exclusionary effects with anticompetitive conduct, thereby providing important guidance for future competition litigation involving regulated industries such as banking.