Ibex RSA Holdco Limited and Another v Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd and Others [2024] ZASCA 166; 2025 (2) SA 408 (SCA) (4 December 2024)

Ibex RSA Holdco Limited and Another v Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd and Others [2024] ZASCA 166; 2025 (2) SA 408 (SCA) (4 December 2024)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the forensic investigation report was not protected by legal professional privilege or litigation privilege under section 67 of PAIA, as its dominant purpose was to investigate accounting irregularities and enable Steinhoff to produce financial statements, not to obtain legal advice or prepare for litigation. The evidence did not support the assertion that litigation was pending or contemplated at the time of commissioning the report. Even if privilege existed, it was waived by Steinhoff's publication of the overview, which disclosed the substance and key findings of the report. The court further found that the public interest override in section 70...

Citation
[2024] ZASCA 166
Parties
Appellant: Ibex RSA Holdco Limited; Appellant: Ibex Topco B V; Respondent: Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Rob Rose; Respondent: amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC; Respondent: Karabo Mpho Letta Rajuili
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 December 2024
Case Number
862/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; application to adduce further evidence refused; cross-appeal struck from the roll with no order as to costs.
Judges
Zondi, Schippers, Hughes, Meyer, Tlaletsi
Legal Topics
Promotion of Access to Information Act, Legal Professional Privilege, Public Interest Override, Corporate Fraud, Disclosure of Evidence, Waiver of Privilege
Constitutional Law Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Promotion of Access to Information Act Legal Professional Privilege Public Interest Override Corporate Fraud Disclosure of Evidence +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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ibex RSA Holdco Limited

Appellant

Ibex Topco B V

Appellant

Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Rob Rose

Respondent

amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC

Respondent

Karabo Mpho Letta Rajuili

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Steinhoff should be allowed to adduce further evidence on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the forensic investigation report is protected by legal professional privilege or litigation privilege under PAIA.
  3. 3 Whether privilege over the report was waived by publication of the overview.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the forensic investigation report was not protected by legal professional privilege or litigation privilege under section 67 of PAIA, as its dominant purpose was to investigate accounting irregularities and enable Steinhoff to produce financial statements, not to obtain legal advice or prepare for litigation. The evidence did not support the assertion that litigation was pending or contemplated at the time of commissioning the report. Even if privilege existed, it was waived by Steinhoff's publication of the overview, which disclosed the substance and key findings of the report. The court further found that the public interest override in section 70...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; application to adduce further evidence refused; cross-appeal struck from the roll with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application to adduce further evidence is refused with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.