South African Reserve Bank v Barit and Others (88570/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 950 (4 November 2016)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

4/11/2016

Case Number: 88570/ 2014

In the matter between:

SOUTH AFRICAN RESERVE BANK

APPLICANT

And

BARIT, LAWRENCE

1st RESPONDENT

BARIT, SHIMON

2nd RESPONDENT

DUERR, MICHAEL

3rd RESPONDENT

DUERR, SOPHIA MARY

4th RESPONDENT

DUERR, JOSEPHINE JOHANNA

5th RESPONDENT

DORR, FREDERIC MICHAEL

6th RESPONDENT

DORR, CAROLIN CHARLOTTE

7th RESPONDENT

DORR, PETER

8th RESPONDENT

DORR, ERNST ALBERT

9th RESPONDENT

DORR, ELFRIEDE LUISE 10th RESPONDENT

DORR, WERNER MARKUS 11th RESPONDENT

GUIZZARDI, GINA 12th RESPONDENT

GUIZZARDI, OSCAR 13th RESPONDENT

GUIZZARDI, MANRICO 14th RESPONDENT

HATHORN, CHRISTOPHER BLAIKIE 15th RESPONDENT

HATHORN, WALTER PIPER 16th RESPONDENT

JOUBERT, GEORGE ROLLAND 17th RESPONDENT

JOUBERT, SALLY HELEN 18th RESPONDENT

HANSCOMB LANG, MICHAEL 19th RESPONDENT

SMUDE-LANG, SIBYLLA 20th RESPONDENT

LANG, NICHOLAS HENDRIK 21th RESPONDENT

LANG, HERMAN WERNER 22th RESPONDENT

MUNNIK, ZACHARIA PETRONELLA 23th RESPONDENT

MEYER, HENDRIK 24th RESPONDENT

MEYER, GWENDOLINE MILDRED 25th RESPONDENT

HENDRIK MEYER N.O. IN HIS CAPACITY AS

TRUSTEE FOR THE TIME BEING OF THE 26th RESPONDENT

H. MEYER FAMILY TRUST

GWENDOLINE MILDRED MEYER N.O. IN HER

CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE TIME BEING OF

THE H. MEYER FAMILY TRUST 27th RESPONDENT

IVO MEYER N.O. IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE

FOR THE TIME BEING OF THE

H. MEYER FAMILY TRUST 28th RESPONDENT

PRIEBATSCH, CHARLES DAVID 29th RESPONDENT

THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT 30th RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

Fabricius J,

1.

Applicant herein is the South African Reserve Bank. It derives its authority and status from the provisions of Section 223 of the Constitution. It is an organ of State as defined in Section 23 9 and is imbued with juristic personality pursuant to Section 2 of the South African Reserve Bank Act 89 of 1998 ("the Act").

2 .

It has private shareholders. The number of shares a person may hold is restricted by the Act Sections 22 and 23 provide for this. In terms of Section 22 (1) (a), no shareholder is entitled to hold, or hold in aggregate with his associates more than 10 000 shares. An "associate" is defined, amongst others, as a close relative of the particular shareholder.

3,

The main purpose of the application is to direct the Respondent shareholders to dispose of those Reserve Bank shares which they hold in aggregate with their associates, in excess of 10 000.

4.

The Respondents and their associates are shareholders. In the Replying Affidavit, Applicant has limited the actual Respondents to numbers 1 to 11 and 17 to 28.

5.

The First and Second Respondents are the only Respondents who have delivered notices of intention to oppose and have filed an Opposing

Affidavit according to the Rules of this Court. Second Respondent is the son of the First Respondent in whose name the Opposing Affidavit is drafted.

6.

I am however satisfied that all the other Respondents have properly been notified of the date of this hearing and that this was done timeously. It is not necessary to provide all the detail of such notifications in this judgment. It appears clearly from the record that the relevant Respondents are adults who would know, like everyone else, that they are also bound by the Rules of Court and cannot simply ignore them with impunity. No German Court would tolerate this either. Many of the initial Respondents have in fact regularized their share-holding according to law.

7.

The Opposing Affidavit of the First and Second Respondents which comprises some 64 pages is a model of evasiveness, of a delaying

strategy, of argumentative nature and even contains unwarranted accusations of ma/a tides. No substantiated defence to the claim which is founded in the Act appears. The authority of the deponent to the Founding Affidavit is challenged on spurious grounds. The deponent, who is a practicing Advocate, ought to have appreciated that the Applicant is merely acting according to the clear, unambiguous provisions of the Act, to regularize the statutory share-holding. Nothing more, nothing less. The Respondents have no defence to the claim, unless the Act is set aside. The First Respondent also has no right, on the present facts, to make any submissions on behalf of the other absent

Respondents.

It is abundantly clear that the Respondents have not complied with Regulations 3 of the Regulations to the Act, which were published on 13 September 2010.

8.

Before me is also an application by Applicant to strike out certain allegations in the so-called "Duerr documenf'. It is not

necessary to deal with those aspects. This "document" is not properly before me and I will simply ignore any irrelevant or scandalous allegations contained therein.

9.

The result is that Applicant's claim is well-founded in law and based on objective facts.

9.1 Prayers 1, 2 and 3 of the Notice of Motion are granted as against Respondents 1 to 11 and 17 to 28.

9.2 No order as to costs is made.

____________________________

JUDGE H.J FABRICIUS

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

Case number:

88570/ 2014

Counsel for the Applicant:

Adv D. Unterhalter SC

Adv K. Hofmeyr

Instructed by: Werksmans Attorneys

Counsel for the 1st & 2nd Respondents: Adv M. E. Manala

Instructed by: R. S. Tau Attorneys

Date of Hearing: 3 November 2016

Date of Judgment: 4 November 2016 at 10:00