South Africa Case Law

South African Reserve Bank v YWBN Mutual Bank (2025/059995)

South African Reserve Bank v YWBN Mutual Bank (2025/059995) [2025] ZAGPJHC 518 (23 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/059995

Judge

R Sutherland

The court found that service of the urgent name change application was ineffective and unprofessional, as it was effected outside business hours on the eve of a public holiday, resulting in SARB not being properly notified. The application could have been struck off for this reason alone. Furthermore, the order of 7 May 2025 was granted on an erroneous factual premise, as SARB had already made a decision on the name change request prior to the application, and YWBN failed to disclose this fact. Additionally, YWBN did not comply with section 35 of the Banks Act, which requires specific procedu…

Source excerpt

• Service Of Process
• Rescission Of Order
• Contempt Of Court
• Banks Act Compliance
• Audi Alterem Partem

Prudential Authority v Duma (21546/2020)

Prudential Authority v Duma (21546/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 789 (20 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21546/2020

Judge

TP Mudau

The High Court granted the Prudential Authority’s application for provisional sequestration after finding an act of insolvency and creditor advantage.

• Provisional Sequestration
• Act Of Insolvency
• Unlawful Deposit Taking
• Advantage To Creditors
• Banks Act Compliance
• Provisional-sequestration

MEC for Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal and Another v South African Reserve Bank Prudential Authority and Others (38719/2022)

MEC for Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal and Another v South African Reserve Bank Prudential Authority and Others (38719/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1182 (29 September 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

38719/2022

Judge

Millar

The court found that the Prudential Authority and Minister of Finance acted within their statutory powers in granting the exemption to Ithala Development Finance Corporation subject to conditions. The conditions imposed were directly connected to concerns raised regarding Ithala's regulatory compliance, governance, and financial stability, and were the result of engagement between the parties. The court held that the conditions were rationally related to the statutory objectives of protecting depositors and ensuring sound financial management, and did not amount to irrationality, lack of bona…

Source excerpt

• Legality Review
• Exemption Conditions
• Banks Act Compliance
• Irrationality
• Ultra Vires
• Constitutional Validity

Koch & Kruger Brokers CC and Another v Financial Sector Conduct Authority and Others (48799/19)

Koch & Kruger Brokers CC and Another v Financial Sector Conduct Authority and Others (48799/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 755 (3 November 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

48799/19

Judge

PM Mabuse

The court found that the Applicants, as financial service providers, owed the Babens a contractual and statutory duty to act with skill, care, and diligence, and to invest their funds in accordance with a low-risk mandate. The Applicants negligently recommended and facilitated investments in Sharemax, a high-risk property syndication scheme, without adequately investigating its legal status or warning of foreseeable regulatory risks. The Babens relied exclusively on the Applicants' advice and were not given sufficient opportunity to review investment documents. The collapse of Sharemax and th…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Financial Services Regulation
• Breach Of Mandate
• Negligence
• Contractual Damages
• Banks Act Compliance

Melamed Finance (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Harris (2016/A5028, 2015/13206)

Melamed Finance (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Harris (2016/A5028, 2015/13206) [2017] ZAGPJHC 188 (26 June 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2016/A5028, 2015/13206

Judges

Sutherland, Molahlehi, Twala

The appellant established a valid cause of action for repayment of the loan through the respondent's clear admissions under oath in the section 417 enquiry and corroborating schedules. The respondent's defences, including set-off, cession, Banks Act violation, and Ponzi scheme allegations, were either unsupported by facts, legally untenable, or irrelevant to the indebtedness. The court a quo erred by speculating on probabilities and failing to apply the correct approach to motion proceedings. No material dispute of fact existed; the respondent's answering affidavit reinforced the admissions.…

Source excerpt

• Loan Agreement
• Summary Judgment
• Admissions In Section 417 Enquiry
• Set Off
• Ponzi Scheme Allegation
• Banks Act Compliance

Zoneska Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Bonatla Properties (Pty) Ltd v Midnight Storm Investments 386 Ltd (9831/2011, 7811/2012)

Zoneska Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Bonatla Properties (Pty) Ltd v Midnight Storm Investments 386 Ltd (9831/2011, 7811/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 163; [2012] 4 All SA 590 (WCC) (28 August 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9831/2011, 7811/2012

Judge

Stelzner, AJ

The court found that Bonatla's business rescue proposal failed to meet the statutory threshold of a reasonable prospect of rescuing the company or its business. The plan was vague, lacked concrete evidence of available funding, and was dependent on numerous suspensive conditions unlikely to be fulfilled. The major creditors, including First Rand Bank and the liquidators of the investor companies, opposed the plan and would not approve the proposed sale. The shares offered as compensation were suspended from trading and had no proven value. The court held that the applicant must provide suffic…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Winding Up
• Creditor Dividends
• Company Liquidation
• Banks Act Compliance
• Proof Of Funding

Nedbank Limited and Fasic Africa (Pty) Limited (89/LM/Dec02)

Nedbank Limited and Fasic Africa (Pty) Limited (89/LM/Dec02) [2004] ZACT 3 (20 January 2004)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

89/LM/Dec02

Judges

N. Manoim, L. Reyburn, T. Orleyn

The Competition Tribunal approved Nedbank’s substitution for BoE Bank and unconditionally cleared Nedbank’s acquisition of Fasic Africa, finding no competition overlap or public interest concern.

• Large Merger Review
• Public Interest Considerations
• Pre Emptive Rights
• Empowerment
• Banks Act Compliance
• Large-merger-review