Singh v South African Reserve Bank [2023] ZAGPPHC 112; 2020/35964 (20 February 2023)

Singh v South African Reserve Bank [2023] ZAGPPHC 112; 2020/35964 (20 February 2023)

The court found that the SARB had reasonable grounds to suspect the applicant contravened exchange control regulations by using other individuals' discretionary allowances to export funds and failing to plausibly explain the source of R80 million. The SARB acted within its powers under regulations 22A and 22C to block both tainted and untainted funds where the amount involved in contravention might be higher than initially identified. The applicant's reliance on Bidvest Bank's approval was misplaced, as Bidvest was not authorised by Treasury to permit such exports. The SARB's decision was not shown to be arbitrary, irrational, or unlawfully dictated by third parties. The applicant failed...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 112
Parties
Applicant: Surendra Singh; Respondent: South African Reserve Bank
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 February 2023
Case Number
2020/35964
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
MNGQIBISA-THUSI
Legal Topics
Exchange Control Regulations, Blocking Order, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Discretionary Allowance, Rationality Review
Banking and Finance Administrative Law Exchange Control Regulations Blocking Order Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Discretionary Allowance Rationality Review

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

Parties

Surendra Singh

Applicant

South African Reserve Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the South African Reserve Bank lawfully issued a blocking order on the applicant's bank account.
  2. 2 Whether the SARB's decision was rationally connected to the information before it.
  3. 3 Whether the SARB acted on unlawful dictation from third parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the SARB had reasonable grounds to suspect the applicant contravened exchange control regulations by using other individuals' discretionary allowances to export funds and failing to plausibly explain the source of R80 million. The SARB acted within its powers under regulations 22A and 22C to block both tainted and untainted funds where the amount involved in contravention might be higher than initially identified. The applicant's reliance on Bidvest Bank's approval was misplaced, as Bidvest was not authorised by Treasury to permit such exports. The SARB's decision was not shown to be arbitrary, irrational, or unlawfully dictated by third parties. The applicant failed...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.