Annex Distribution (Pty) Ltd and Others v Bank of Baroda (52590/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 608; 2018 (1) SA 562 (GP) (21 September 2017)
The court held that there is no recognized cause of action for an 'interim-interim' interdict outside the established requirements for interim interdicts. The applicants failed to plead or establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, did not demonstrate that the bank's termination notices were invalid or that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] ZAGPPHC 608
- Parties
- Applicant: Annex Distribution (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Confident Concepts (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Sahara Computers (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: VR Laser Services (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Sahara Consumables (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Infinity Media Networks (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Islandsite Investments One Hundred and Eighty (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Koornfontein Mines (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Oakbay Investments (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Oakbay Resources & Energy (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Optimum Coal Mine (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Shiva Uranium (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Tegeta Exploration and Resources (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Westdawn Investments (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Idwala Coal (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Tegeta Resources (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Mabengela Investments (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Mabengela Resources and Energy (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Koornfontein Rehabilitation Trust; Applicant: Optimum Mine Rehabilitation Trust; Respondent: Bank of Baroda
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 21 September 2017
- Case Number
- 52590/2017
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application Prior to Main Hearing
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two Senior Counsel and two Junior Counsel, jointly and severally.
- Judges
- Fabricius
- Legal Topics
- Banker Customer Relationship, Interim Interdict, Reasonable Notice, Contractual Termination, Public Policy in Contract, Money Laundering Compliance
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Annex Distribution (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Confident Concepts (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Sahara Computers (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
VR Laser Services (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Sahara Consumables (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Infinity Media Networks (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Islandsite Investments One Hundred and Eighty (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Koornfontein Mines (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Oakbay Investments (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Oakbay Resources & Energy (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Optimum Coal Mine (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Shiva Uranium (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Tegeta Exploration and Resources (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Westdawn Investments (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Idwala Coal (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Tegeta Resources (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Mabengela Investments (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Mabengela Resources and Energy (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Koornfontein Rehabilitation Trust
Applicant
Optimum Mine Rehabilitation Trust
Applicant
Bank of Baroda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application Prior to Main Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to interim-interim relief preventing the bank from closing their accounts pending further proceedings.
- 2 Whether the bank's termination of the banker-customer relationship and calling up of loans was on reasonable notice.
- 3 Whether the contractual termination clauses are contrary to public policy or unenforceable.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that there is no recognized cause of action for an 'interim-interim' interdict outside the established requirements for interim interdicts. The applicants failed to plead or establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, did not demonstrate that the bank's termination notices were invalid or that reasonable notice was lacking, and did not show irreparable harm or absence of alternative remedies. The contractual terms expressly permitted termination and calling up of loans at the bank's discretion. The bank's decision was justified by reputational, regulatory, and compliance risks, and the applicants' reliance on section 34 of the Constitution was misplaced. The balance...
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two Senior Counsel and two Junior Counsel, jointly and severally.
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- Applicants, jointly and severally, the one paying, the others to be absolved, are to pay the costs of Respondent, including the costs of two Senior Counsel and two Junior Counsel.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment