Boland Bank Bpk. v Piffods Bpk. and Others (123/86) [1987] ZASCA 71; [1987] 2 All SA 404 (A) (24 August 1987)

Boland Bank Bpk. v Piffods Bpk. and Others (123/86) [1987] ZASCA 71; [1987] 2 All SA 404 (A) (24 August 1987)

The court held that section 28(2) of the Banks Act only prohibits the registration of shares in the name of a nominee by a banking institution or bank controlling company, and does not extend to situations where a registered shareholder subsequently holds shares as nominee for another entity. The appellant's interpretation would require a substantial and unwarranted rewriting of the statutory provision. There was no factual basis for the additional grounds advanced by the appellant, including the alleged violation of the Stamp Duties Act, as there was no evidence that the second contract was entered into to evade stamp duty. The appellant was not entitled to the declaratory or mandatory...

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 71
Parties
Appellant: Boland Bank Beperk; Respondent: Picfoods Beperk; Respondent: New Bernica Beperk; Respondent: Volkskas Groep Beperk; Respondent: Legal & General Volkskas Versekering Beperk; Respondent: Volkskas Pensioenfonds; Respondent: New Bernica Securities (Edms) Beperk
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 August 1987
Case Number
123/86
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Motion Application in the Cape Provincial Division
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the application for condonation, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Corbett, Hoexter, Smalberger, Nestadt, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Bank Shareholding Restrictions, Nominee Registration, Statutory Interpretation, Stamp Duties, Condonation of Late Appeal
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Bank Shareholding Restrictions Nominee Registration Statutory Interpretation Stamp Duties Condonation of Late Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boland Bank Beperk

Appellant

Picfoods Beperk

Respondent

New Bernica Beperk

Respondent

Volkskas Groep Beperk

Respondent

Legal & General Volkskas Versekering Beperk

Respondent

Volkskas Pensioenfonds

Respondent

New Bernica Securities (Edms) Beperk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Motion Application in the Cape Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 28(2) of the Banks Act prohibits a registered shareholder from holding shares as nominee for another entity after initial registration.
  2. 2 Whether the second contract between Picfoods, Volkskas, VPF, and New Bernica was void under section 14 of the Stamp Duties Act due to alleged evasion of stamp duty.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was entitled to the declaratory and mandatory relief sought regarding the registration and disposal of shares.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 28(2) of the Banks Act only prohibits the registration of shares in the name of a nominee by a banking institution or bank controlling company, and does not extend to situations where a registered shareholder subsequently holds shares as nominee for another entity. The appellant's interpretation would require a substantial and unwarranted rewriting of the statutory provision. There was no factual basis for the additional grounds advanced by the appellant, including the alleged violation of the Stamp Duties Act, as there was no evidence that the second contract was entered into to evade stamp duty. The appellant was not entitled to the declaratory or mandatory...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the application for condonation, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the application for condonation, including the costs of two counsel.