The Sekunjalo Group of Companies' (Sekunjalo) bank accounts at Nedbank will remain open after the Western Cape High Court ruled Nedbank’s appeal against the interim interdict granted to Sekunjalo in June was dismissed with costs.
Nedbank had argued that Section 23(1) of the Equality Act, which governs appeals from the Equality Court, allowed for an appeal against any order of such court and as such, the order could be appealed.
Judge Mokgoatji Dolamo said: “The logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is that any order will include interim orders. I do not subscribe to this wide interpretation of this section.”
The matter before the Equality Court was an application instituted by Sekunjalo executive chairman Dr Iqbal Survé and 43 others representing the wider Sekunjalo Group, against Nedbank Limited and Nedbank Private Wealth Stockbrokers (Pty) Limited.
Nedbank’s application was opposed by Sekunjalo, primarily on the basis that the judgment and the orders were not appealable and that Nedbank’s grounds of appeal neither meet the required standard, nor were there any other compelling reason to grant leave to appeal.
Regarding Nedbank’s argument that it would have to provide banking facilities to Sekunjalo pending the hearing of the main review application would pose a reputational risk, Judge Dolamo said: “Without any proof of such risk, in my view, does not amount to irreparable harm.”
As to whether there was some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, the judge said the bank had failed to demonstrate one and, in that respect, the reverse was true in this case.
“The review application raises substantial constitutional issues of national interest, some of which have already reached the Portfolio Committee of the National Assembly and, indications are, that other parties may seek leave to join the proceedings.
“It is vital therefore that Sekunjalo remains alive to proceed with the review application. The closure of its accounts may have the reverse effect in a matter of such national importance which in my view, has reasonable prospects of success in the review application.”
Judge Dolamo said he had not been persuaded that the order was appealable nor that it would be in the interest of justice to grant leave to appeal it, pending the review application.
He ordered the application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.