Odendaal v South African Reserve Bank (2271/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 160 (6 July 2023)

Odendaal v South African Reserve Bank (2271/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 160 (6 July 2023)

The court found that the applicant had repudiated the agreement with the respondent by insisting on payment of legal fees in addition to the agreed monthly amount, contrary to the terms of the agreement. The respondent validly accepted the repudiation and cancelled the agreement, terminating any contractual obligation to release further funds. The respondent's blocking and release of funds constituted administrative action under PAJA, and the applicant's remedy lay in a review application under PAJA, not direct constitutional enforcement. The principle of subsidiarity precluded the applicant from seeking direct constitutional relief where legislation (PAJA) provided a remedy. The...

Citation
[2023] ZAWCHC 160
Parties
Applicant: Berdine Odendaal; Respondent: The South African Reserve Bank
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 July 2023
Case Number
2271/2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Wille
Legal Topics
Exchange Control Regulations, Blocking Orders, Subsidiarity Principle, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Specific Performance, Constitutional Rights Enforcement
Administrative Law Banking and Finance Exchange Control Regulations Blocking Orders Subsidiarity Principle Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Specific Performance Constitutional Rights Enforcement

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Berdine Odendaal

Applicant

The South African Reserve Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent validly cancelled the agreement to release funds to the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to specific performance for payment of her reasonable legal fees from blocked funds.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant may seek relief directly under constitutional rights or must proceed under PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had repudiated the agreement with the respondent by insisting on payment of legal fees in addition to the agreed monthly amount, contrary to the terms of the agreement. The respondent validly accepted the repudiation and cancelled the agreement, terminating any contractual obligation to release further funds. The respondent's blocking and release of funds constituted administrative action under PAJA, and the applicant's remedy lay in a review application under PAJA, not direct constitutional enforcement. The principle of subsidiarity precluded the applicant from seeking direct constitutional relief where legislation (PAJA) provided a remedy. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall be liable for the costs of and incidental to the application, including the fees of senior counsel where so employed, on the scale between party and party, as taxed or agreed.