Jacquesson v Minister of Finance (548 / 2004) [2005] ZASCA 103; 2006 (3) SA 334 (SCA) (16 November 2005)

Jacquesson v Minister of Finance (548 / 2004) [2005] ZASCA 103; 2006 (3) SA 334 (SCA) (16 November 2005)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the forfeiture of funds under Regulation 22B of the Exchange Control Regulations does not depend on a criminal conviction or prosecution, but rather on a contravention or reasonable suspicion of contravention of the regulations. The amnesty granted to the appellant under s 20(1) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act related to offences committed between 1982 and 1987 involving the illegal export of capital. However, the funds in question were attached in January 1988, outside the amnesty period, and were not shown to be connected to the offences for which amnesty was granted. The appellant failed to establish that the causa for the...

Citation
[2005] ZASCA 103
Parties
Appellant: Maurice Alphonse Jacquesson; Respondent: Minister of Finance
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 November 2005
Case Number
548 / 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Harms, Streicher, Mthiyane, Lewis, Ponnan
Legal Topics
Condictio Sine Causa, Exchange Control Regulations, Amnesty Under Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, Forfeiture of Funds
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Condictio Sine Causa Exchange Control Regulations Amnesty Under Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act Forfeiture of Funds

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maurice Alphonse Jacquesson

Appellant

Minister of Finance

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of amnesty under s 20(1) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act entitles the appellant to repayment of funds forfeited to the State.
  2. 2 Whether the causa for the forfeiture of funds has fallen away due to the amnesty.
  3. 3 Whether the forfeited funds are connected to offences covered by the amnesty period.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the forfeiture of funds under Regulation 22B of the Exchange Control Regulations does not depend on a criminal conviction or prosecution, but rather on a contravention or reasonable suspicion of contravention of the regulations. The amnesty granted to the appellant under s 20(1) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act related to offences committed between 1982 and 1987 involving the illegal export of capital. However, the funds in question were attached in January 1988, outside the amnesty period, and were not shown to be connected to the offences for which amnesty was granted. The appellant failed to establish that the causa for the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include those consequent upon the employment of two counsel.