The SCA’s Correction on the Sactwu‑IMC Case

What Happened Originally?

The Initial Judgment

In 2023 Sactwu took a dispute to the Western Cape High Court. The court ruled that a loan Sactwu gave to a special purpose vehicle (SPV) called the Independent Media Consortium (IMC) was invalid because the loan was subordinated and Andre Kriel, Sactwu’s general secretary, had the authority to agree to that subordination. Sactwu appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).

The In Duplum Rule

South African law includes the “in duplum” rule, which says that interest on a debt cannot exceed the original amount borrowed. In simple terms, if you borrow R100, the most you can ever owe in interest is another R100 – the total cannot be more than double the principal.

Why the SCA Changed Its Mind

The SCA first decided that Sactwu should receive R458 million plus interest from 2023, ignoring the in duplum rule. After reviewing the case, the court realized this was a mistake. It corrected the judgment to R300 million (the original R150 million loan plus interest capped by the in duplum rule) and said the correction takes effect from March 2026.

Who Is the Independent Media Consortium (IMC)?

Background of the SPV

IMC started as a special purpose vehicle set up to hold shares in Independent Media. It was created for a consortium that included Sekunjalo and about 12 empowerment groups. Sactwu originally agreed to invest R200 million for a 10 % stake, later changed to an 8 % stake and a loan of R150 million to the consortium.

Money Flow and the PIC

The R150 million loan was paid to the Public Investment Corporation (PIC), not directly to Sekunjalo. Sactwu instructed the law firm ENS to handle the transaction, and ENS later faced scrutiny for acting for both sides.

Sekunjalo’s Side of the Story

Lucien Jacobs’ Comments

Lucien Jacobs, CEO of Sekunjalo, says the media often mixes up the facts. He points out that:
– IMC has no real assets and was only a vehicle for buying shares in Independent Media.
– Sactwu’s union members’ money was spent on legal fees for ENS, with little chance of getting it back.
– The loan money went to the PIC, not to Sekunjalo, and Sactwu directed the payment through ENS.

Sekunjalo’s Lawsuit Against Sactwu

The Claim Amount

Sekunjalo has filed a summons in the Western Cape High Court asking for R250 million plus interest, which totals about R620 million. The claim stems from Sactwu’s promise to fund a union newspaper (R250 million) that it never fulfilled, while Sekunjalo covered the cost.

What Sekunjalo Says About Benefits

Jacobs argues that Sactwu has already received benefits worth more than R1.7 billion from Sekunjalo, including shares and dividends exceeding R1 billion. He urges Sactwu to:
– Stop enriching ENS and recover the money lost in the Trilinear Capital scam.
– Ask workers to investigate how Sactwu’s executives profited at the expense of members.

Impact on Independent Media

Clarifying IOL vs Independent Media

Jacobs stresses that IOL and Independent Media are separate entities; they only have a working relationship. Independent Media and its subsidiaries are not part of the Sactwu‑IMC dispute. Sekunjalo has funded Independent Media with over R1.4 billion in the past seven to eight years and remains its main secured creditor.

Bottom Line – What This Means for Everyone

– The SCA’s corrected judgment limits Sactwu’s recoverable amount to R300 million, respecting the in duplum rule.
– IMC was merely a legal shell; the money flowed through the PIC, not directly to Sekunjalo.
– Sekunjalo is pursuing its own claim for roughly R620 million, arguing Sactwu owes them for the newspaper funding.
– Independent Media continues to operate independently, supported mainly by Sekunjalo’s investments.

Conclusion

The legal back‑and‑forth between Sactwu, the IMC, and Sekunjalo shows how complex financial deals and court rules can become. The SCA’s correction brings the case back in line with the in duplum rule, capping interest at the original loan amount. For teens watching the news, the key takeaway is that courts will not let debts grow beyond double what was originally borrowed, and that clear communication about who owns what is essential to avoid confusion and costly lawsuits.