Achuko v Absa Bank Ltd (Absa) and Others (31739/2017) [2019] ZAGPJHC 264; 2020 (1) SA 533 (GJ) (15 August 2019)

Achuko v Absa Bank Ltd (Absa) and Others (31739/2017) [2019] ZAGPJHC 264; 2020 (1) SA 533 (GJ) (15 August 2019)

The court found that while South African courts may have jurisdiction over conduct abroad if its effects are felt domestically, the applicant failed to establish any causal link between the prearranged trades by ABSA and FirstRand on the Chicago Board of Trade and the price of maize in South Africa. Expert evidence from the respondents demonstrated that the trades did not affect South African maize prices, and the applicant provided no countervailing evidence. As a result, there was no infringement of section 27(1)(b) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Financial Markets Act was not in force at the time of the trades, and there was no basis for declaratory or constitutional relief...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 264
Parties
Applicant: Eric Achuko; Respondent: Absa Bank Ltd (ABSA); Respondent: Firstrand Bank Ltd (FNB); Respondent: Financial Services Board (FSB); Respondent: Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE); Respondent: South African Reserve Bank (SARB); Respondent: Banking Association of South Africa (BASA); Respondent: Minister of Finance; Respondent: Minister of Justice
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 August 2019
Case Number
31739/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant from the time heads of argument were served.
Judges
Unterhalter
Legal Topics
Bill of Rights Limitation, Jurisdiction, Prearranged Trading, Financial Markets Regulation, Costs Award, Declaratory Relief
Constitutional Law Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Bill of Rights Limitation Jurisdiction Prearranged Trading Financial Markets Regulation Costs Award +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Achuko

Applicant

Absa Bank Ltd (ABSA)

Respondent

Firstrand Bank Ltd (FNB)

Respondent

Financial Services Board (FSB)

Respondent

Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE)

Respondent

South African Reserve Bank (SARB)

Respondent

Banking Association of South Africa (BASA)

Respondent

Minister of Finance

Respondent

Minister of Justice

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether South African courts have jurisdiction over conduct by South African entities abroad that allegedly infringes constitutional rights within South Africa.
  2. 2 Whether prearranged trades by ABSA and FirstRand on the CBOT affected the price of maize in South Africa and infringed section 27(1)(b) of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether section 80 of the Financial Markets Act prohibits prearranged trades and, if not, whether it is constitutionally deficient.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while South African courts may have jurisdiction over conduct abroad if its effects are felt domestically, the applicant failed to establish any causal link between the prearranged trades by ABSA and FirstRand on the Chicago Board of Trade and the price of maize in South Africa. Expert evidence from the respondents demonstrated that the trades did not affect South African maize prices, and the applicant provided no countervailing evidence. As a result, there was no infringement of section 27(1)(b) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Financial Markets Act was not in force at the time of the trades, and there was no basis for declaratory or constitutional relief...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant from the time heads of argument were served.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs of the First, Second, Third and Seventh Respondents in respect of their preparation for the hearing and the hearing itself, from the time that these respondents served their heads of argument upon the applicant.