Singh v South African Reserve Bank (35964/20) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1211 (22 September 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPPHC 1211
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Swanepoel
- Case number
- 35964/20
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Swanepoel
- Case number
- 35964/20
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any factual basis in the papers to support the allegations of arbitrariness, irrationality, or dictation. The analysis and findings of the previous judgment by Mngqibisa-Thusi J were endorsed. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success for the appeal and no compelling reason for it to be heard. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Surendra Singh
ApplicantSouth African Reserve Bank
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Amount Attached: ZAR 40,000,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondent's decision to attach R 40 million belonging to the applicant was arbitrary and irrational.
- 02
Whether the respondent acted on dictation from another person.
- 03
Whether there is a reasonable prospect of success for the appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the South African Reserve Bank's decision to attach R 40 million of his funds was arbitrary and irrational, and that the respondent acted on the dictation of another person. He argued that these grounds justified leave to appeal.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that its decision was lawful, rational, and based on proper grounds. It denied acting on dictation and argued that the applicant's papers did not establish any factual basis for the allegations. The respondent submitted that there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal may only be granted if there is a reasonable prospect of success or another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.
- 02
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA: In re Ex parte President of the RSA 2000 (2) SA 674 (CC)
A decision is arbitrary or irrational if it is not based on reason or relevant facts.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any factual basis in the papers to support the allegations of arbitrariness, irrationality, or dictation. The analysis and findings of the previous judgment by Mngqibisa-Thusi J were endorsed. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success for the appeal and no compelling reason for it to be heard. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Obiter and limits
- The facts and analysis have been comprehensively dealt with in the previous judgment, and there is no need to repeat them here.
- Respect is expressed for the findings of Mngqibisa-Thusi J, which are fully agreed with.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case number: 35964/20
Date of hearing: 24 August 2023
Date delivered: 24 August 2023
Reasons: 22 September 2023
In the matter between:
SURENDRA
SINGH
Applicant
and
SOUTH
AFRICAN RESERVE BANK
Respondent
REASONS
FOR JUDGEMENT
SWANEPOEL J:
[1] On 24 August 2023 I heard an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of my sister Mngqibisa-Thusi J which she handed down on 20 February 2023.
[2] The notice of application for leave to appeal confined the grounds for appeal to essentially one proposition: That the respondent's decision to attach R 40 million belonging to applicant was arbitrary and irrational and that he was acting on °dictation" (sic) of another person.
[3] I do not intend to repeat the facts, as they are comprehensively dealt with in the judgment of Mngqibisa-Thusi J.Her analysis of the matter is also fully set out, and I respectfully agree with her findings. Suffice it to say, that I find no facts in the papers to support applicant's case.
[4] I may only grant leave to appeal if I believe that an appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success, or if there is another compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. I cannot find so in this case.
{5) For the aforesaid reasons I dismissed the application with costs.
SWANEPOEL
J
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION PRETORIA
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.