Toyota logo. (Photo: EPA / Michael Reynolds) | Wesbank logo | Unsplash / Harry Shelton) 
The Competition Tribunal has confirmed a settlement agreement between the Competition Commission and several major players in the car finance sector.
The deal brings to an end a long-running case that saw Toyota Financial Services South Africa (TFSSA) accused of carving up the market at the expense of consumers.
As part of the settlement, the respondents – FirstRand Bank, TFSSA, Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Financial Services UK, and Toyota South Africa Motors – will pay an administrative penalty of R30-million.
The fine comes “without admission of liability”, according to the agreement.
Wesbank clarified last night that it was not found to have contravened the Competition Act and was not included in the R30-million penalty. However, as part of the agreement, Wesbank agreed to make certain changes to the execution of its joint venture agreement with Toyota Financial Services. (TFS).
"Wesbank will continue not to compete on the dealer floor, with TFS, in line with the joint venture agreement. However, should customers wish to come directly to Wesbank, or use one of Wesbank's digital channels, that will be accommodated in line with the agreement with the Competition Commission," the company said.
Case of collusion
The commission referred the matter for prosecution on 1 February 2022, alleging that WesBank and TFSSA were guilty of market division, depriving customers of choice.
Read more: CompCom has Toyota Financial Services and Wesbank in its sights — alleges collusive behaviour
“FirstRand Bank Limited, through its WesBank division and TFSSA were involved in the provision of vehicle finance services. They were supposed to compete,” the commission stated in a newsletter sent out in March 2020.
Investigators found that the arrangement went beyond informal arrangements. A shareholder agreement between FirstRand, Toyota SA Investment Holdings and Toyota Motor Finance UK (each holding a 33.3% stake in Toyota SA) includes “clauses that prohibit WesBank from offering finance to customers seeking to purchase vehicles at authorised Toyota dealerships”, a commission statement says.
That translated into hard restrictions. Any applications sent to WesBank by Toyota buyers were rerouted to TFSSA. The block applied to new Toyota, Lexus and Hino vehicles, as well as used vehicles sold through Toyota dealerships, except for the McCarthy Group.
The commission described this arrangement as “harmful to consumers as it deprives them [of] the benefits of competition”.
Market division dressed as business
By allocating customers rather than competing for them, the two finance entities were in breach of Section 4 of the Competition Act. The conduct struck at the heart of consumer choice, a principle that is at the centre of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
Read more: Tribunal’s landmark ruling exposes motor repair workshop in cautionary tale for consumers
The CPA explicitly protects the consumer’s right to choose and prohibits suppliers from tying customers into transactions with designated third parties. The practice uncovered in this case left Toyota buyers with little room to exercise that right when arranging finance.
Restrictions lifted
One of the most significant outcomes of the settlement is the agreement to scrap the clauses that kept WesBank out of Toyota’s showrooms.
Read more: The true price of owning a car
Competition Commissioner Doris Tshepe welcomed the shift, saying, “The removal of the restrictions that prevented Wesbank from financing vehicles will provide customers with a wider choice when selecting vehicle financiers to finance vehicles purchased from authorised Toyota dealerships.”
Procedural tussle
The road to settlement was not without courtroom skirmishes. On 2 May 2025, the tribunal dismissed an application to strike brought by FirstRand Bank and Wesbank in an attempt to chip away at the Commission’s case.
In their March 2025 annual financial report, TFSSA stated that they did not expect the matter to be resolved within the 2026 financial year.
With the tribunal’s confirmation of the settlement, the matter is now closed. The commission initially sought a fine of up to 10% of the companies’ turnover. Instead, the case concludes with a R30-million penalty, the removal of anti-competitive clauses, and a reminder that consumer rights to choice and fair competition remain a battleground in South Africa’s automotive sector. DM