South Africa Case Law

Financial Sector Conduct Authority v Financial Services Tribunal and Others (009838/2023)

Financial Sector Conduct Authority v Financial Services Tribunal and Others (009838/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 675 (9 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

009838/2023

Judge

N Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen

The court held that the FSCA may impose administrative penalties on peregrini under section 167 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act where the requirements of the section are satisfied and there is a sufficiently close connection between the conduct and South Africa. The court found that service of notice by any means, including electronic means, is sufficient to establish jurisdiction over peregrini for regulatory purposes. The common law was developed to reflect modern digital realities and the public interest in regulating cross-border financial misconduct. The majority decision of the T…

Source excerpt

• Financial Sector Regulation Act
• Jurisdiction Over Peregrini
• Administrative Penalties
• Service Of Process
• Development Of Common Law

Prudential Authority of South Africa v Financial Services Tribunal and Others (2023/058536)

Prudential Authority of South Africa v Financial Services Tribunal and Others (2023/058536) [2025] ZAGPPHC 16; 2025 (3) SA 597 (GP) (15 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023/058536

Judge

Potterill

The Court found that the Prudential Authority has locus standi to bring a review application under the FSR-Act, as the statute expressly includes the decision-maker as a party entitled to review. The respondents did not contravene section 14 of the Insurance Act, as the Act does not require prior approval for appointments, and retrospective approval regularises the appointments. The Financial Services Tribunal acted within its powers to substitute the administrative penalty for contravention of section 16(1), as the PA failed to specify the calculation of penalties and the Tribunal considered…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review Of Tribunal Decision
• Administrative Penalties
• Insurance Regulation
• Locus Standi
• Transitional Provisions
• Statutory Interpretation

Electoral Commission of South Africa v African Independent Congress and Others (0011/23EC)

Electoral Commission of South Africa v African Independent Congress and Others (0011/23EC) [2024] ZAEC 11 (10 May 2024)

Court

Electoral Court

Case number

0011/23EC

Judges

Zondi JA, Modiba J, Adams AJ, Professor Ntlama-Makhanya, Professor Phooko

The Electoral Court held that multiple political parties failed to comply with section 12 of the Political Party Funding Act and imposed administrative penalties.

• Political Party Funding
• Administrative Penalties
• Statutory Compliance
• Audited Financial Statements
• Regulatory Enforcement
• Political-party-funding

Motloung and Another v Commissioner South African Revenue Service and Others (5492/2021)

Motloung and Another v Commissioner South African Revenue Service and Others (5492/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 254 (23 June 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5492/2021

Judge

N.M. Mbhele

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The understatement penalty imposed by SARS is administrative, not criminal, and section 35(3) of the Constitution does not apply to taxpayers subject to such penalties. The exclusion of understatement penalties from certain provisions of the Tax Administration Act does not alter their administrative nature. The applicants did not raise genuine constitutional issues, and their reliance on the Biowatch principle was misplaced, as their litigation was not substantive or genuine in constitutional…

Source excerpt

• Tax Administration Act
• Understatement Penalty
• Constitutional Rights Of Accused
• Administrative Penalties
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation
• Biowatch Principle

Becker and Others v Financial Services Conduct Authority and Others (23807/2020)

Becker and Others v Financial Services Conduct Authority and Others (23807/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 22 (1 February 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

23807/2020

Judge

Ncongwane

The High Court dismissed a constitutional challenge to FSR Act sections 154, 167 and 231, finding the applicants had not shown infringement of sections 22, 33 or 34.

• Financial Sector Regulation Act
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Debarment Orders
• Administrative Penalties
• Access To Court

A and Another v Commissioner For The South African Revenue Service (IT13725, VAT1426, IT13727, VAT1096)

A and Another v Commissioner For The South African Revenue Service (IT13725, VAT1426, IT13727, VAT1096) [2018] ZATC 10; 82 SATC 457 (8 February 2018)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

IT13725, VAT1426, IT13727, VAT1096

Judges

Olsen, L Hlengwa, G Bacon

The court found that the appellants' failure to submit income tax and VAT returns over multiple years was not justified by any administrative incapacity and constituted gross negligence. The application for tax amnesty in 2006 demonstrated knowledge of tax obligations. The definition of 'understatement' in the Tax Administration Act includes a default in rendering a return, and the penalties are applicable even where no return is submitted. Prejudice to SARS and the fiscus is inherent in the delayed payment and resource allocation required for audits. The penalties for disallowed medical expe…

Source excerpt

• Tax Administration Act
• Understatement Penalties
• Gross Negligence
• Administrative Penalties
• Burden Of Proof

Pather and Another v Financial Services Board and Others (57617/10)

Pather and Another v Financial Services Board and Others (57617/10) [2014] ZAGPPHC 303; [2014] 3 All SA 208 (GP); 2014 (9) BCLR 1082 (GP) (20 March 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

57617/10

Judge

N F Kgomo

The court held that the Enforcement Committee had jurisdiction to impose administrative penalties for contraventions of section 76 of the Securities Services Act, 36 of 2004, as the Act's provisions for administrative penalties operate independently of the criminal jurisdiction conferred on the High Court and Regional Court by section 79. The transitional provisions of section 78(4) of the 2008 Amendment Act preserved the Committee's jurisdiction for investigations and proceedings pending or instituted before the amendments took effect, including the applicants' matter. The Committee was enti…

Source excerpt

• Securities Regulation
• Administrative Penalties
• Jurisdiction Of Statutory Bodies
• Standard Of Proof
• Constitutional Review
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

South African Local Government Association and Another v Competition Commission and Others (017194 - 017269, 017319-017376, 017384)

South African Local Government Association and Another v Competition Commission and Others (017194 - 017269, 017319-017376, 017384) [2013] ZACT 92; [2013] 2 CPLR 585 (CT) (19 September 2013)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

017194 - 017269, 017319-017376, 017384

Judges

Norman Manoim, Yasmin Carrim, Takalani Madima

Tribunal dismissed intervention applications in consent order proceedings, holding the applicants lacked a distinct material interest not already represented by the Competition Commission.

• Consent Orders
• Intervention Rights
• Administrative Penalties
• Locus Standi
• Public Interest
• Collusive Tendering

Competition Commission v Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others, In re: Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others v Competition Commission and Others (102/CAC/Jun 10)

Competition Commission v Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others, In re: Loungefoam (Pty) Ltd and Others v Competition Commission and Others (102/CAC/Jun 10) [2012] ZACAC 10; [2013] 1 CPLR 17 (CAC) (14 December 2012)

Court

Competition Appeal Court

Case number

102/CAC/Jun 10

Judges

M J D Wallis, Davis, Ndita

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Commission's proposed amendment did not raise any novel legal issue or point of public importance. The court found that the amendment, as formulated, was not a new complaint but factual allegations that could have been advanced by proper amendment. The Tribunal's decision to allow the amendment was set aside because it misunderstood the nature of the complaint. The court held that s 4(5)(b) does not provide a basis for holding companies to be liable for administrative penalties imposed on subsidiaries for conduct involving third pa…

Source excerpt

• Referral And Initiation Of Complaints
• Joinder Of Parties
• Single Economic Entity
• Administrative Penalties
• Leave To Appeal