South Africa Case Law

SAR Investment (Pty) Ltd and Others v Standard Bank of South Africa (16344/21)

SAR Investment (Pty) Ltd and Others v Standard Bank of South Africa (16344/21) [2023] ZAGPJHC 834 (27 July 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

16344/21

Judge

Molahlehi

The court found that the applicant failed to disclose a cause of action in its founding papers, as required by South African procedural law. The pleadings did not set out factual averments supporting the relief sought, nor did they clarify the legal basis for the claim against the respondents. The application was premature, as the Reserve Bank's investigation into the transaction was ongoing and no final decision to attach or block the funds had been made. The applicant did not challenge the authority of the Reserve Bank to conduct the investigation, nor did it demonstrate any clear right or…

Source excerpt

• Exchange Control
• Currency And Exchanges Act
• Attachment Of Funds
• Pleading Requirements
• Blocking Orders

Yanling International Trade CC v South African Reserve Bank

Yanling International Trade CC v South African Reserve Bank [2023] ZAGPPHC 79; 56220/21 (13 February 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

56220/21

Judge

LG Kilmartin

The court held that the review application was governed by the Currency and Exchanges Act and the Exchange Control Regulations, which prescribe a 90-day time limit for instituting legal proceedings to challenge a forfeiture decision. The applicant's argument that the 90-day limit applies only to action proceedings and not applications was rejected; the term 'action' in Regulation 22D(b) must be interpreted broadly to include all forms of legal proceedings, including applications. The court found that the applicant launched its review application more than two months after the expiry of the 90…

Source excerpt

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Forfeiture Of Funds
• Judicial Review Time Limits
• Condonation
• Currency And Exchanges Act

Tayob N.O and Another v Public Investment Corporation (PIC) and Another (61684/21)

Tayob N.O and Another v Public Investment Corporation (PIC) and Another (61684/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 753 (6 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

61684/21

Judge

Ndlokovane

The High Court upheld an exception to amended particulars of claim seeking repayment of funds allegedly held in a special restricted account.

• Exception Procedure
• Special Restricted Account
• Ministerial Discretion
• Currency And Exchanges Act
• Debt Recovery
• Exception-procedure

Evergrand Trading (Pty) Ltd v South Africa Reserve Bank and Another (54068/2020)

Evergrand Trading (Pty) Ltd v South Africa Reserve Bank and Another (54068/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 739 (3 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

54068/2020

Judge

Ceylon I

High Court dismissed Evergrand’s late review of a Reserve Bank forfeiture, holding the 90-day statutory limit applied and condonation was not justified.

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Forfeiture Orders
• Condonation Of Delay
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Currency And Exchanges Act
• Judicial Review Time Limits

Maddocks N.O and Another v South African Reserve Bank and Another (D8203/2019)

Maddocks N.O and Another v South African Reserve Bank and Another (D8203/2019) [2021] ZAKZDHC 13 (1 April 2021)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D8203/2019

Judge

Olsen

The court held that the forfeiture orders issued by the South African Reserve Bank after the commencement of liquidation unlawfully interfered with the concursus creditorum and the statutory duties of the liquidators under the Companies Act. The Currency and Exchanges Act and its regulations do not expressly suspend the application of insolvency law in these circumstances. The court found that the Reserve Bank, by appropriating the companies' claims against the banks, effectively became a creditor subject to insolvency law. The Kwazulu-Natal High Court has jurisdiction to review and set aside…

Source excerpt

• Forfeiture Orders
• Concursus Creditorum
• Currency And Exchanges Act
• Liquidation Procedure
• Administrative Action Review
• Statutory Interpretation

Olive Health Consulting (Pty) Ltd and Another v South Africa Reserve Bank (66863/2020)

Olive Health Consulting (Pty) Ltd and Another v South Africa Reserve Bank (66863/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 19 (18 January 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

66863/2020

Judge

N Davis

The court found that the applicants had admitted to contraventions of the Exchange Control Regulations, specifically exceeding the R50,000 per credit card transaction limit and the R1 million discretionary allowance. The Reserve Bank's jurisdictional entitlement to invoke Regulation 22C was established, and the blocking of funds was lawful. The applicants' explanations regarding ignorance of the limits and advice from bankers were legally irrelevant. The statutory regime provides for a 36-month investigation period, and the relief sought by the applicants would impermissibly curtail the Reser…

Source excerpt

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Blocking Of Funds
• Currency And Exchanges Act
• Discretionary Allowance Limits
• Credit Card Transaction Limits

South African Reserve Bank v Khumalo and Another (235/09)

South African Reserve Bank v Khumalo and Another (235/09) [2010] ZASCA 53; 2010 (5) SA 449 (SCA) ; [2011] 1 All SA 26 (SCA) (31 March 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

235/09

Judges

Harms, Nugent, Leach, Hurt, Majiedt

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the omission of a time limit in Regulation 22C(1) does not render the regulation invalid. The empowering statute, section 9(2)(g) of the Currency and Exchanges Act, sets a statutory maximum period for attachment, which applies regardless of whether the regulation or the notice expressly states it. The regulations must be interpreted in light of the statute, and the attachment cannot endure beyond the statutory limit. The court found that the President was not required to reiterate the time limit in the regulations, and the absence of such a provision does…

Source excerpt

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Statutory Interpretation
• Attachment Of Assets
• Currency And Exchanges Act

Barclays National Bank Ltd. v Thompson (242/83)

Barclays National Bank Ltd. v Thompson (242/83) [1985] ZASCA 50; [1985] 2 All SA 355 (A) (29 May 1985)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

242/83

Judges

Corbett, Kotzé, Cillié, Hoexter, Hefer

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the court a quo correctly exercised its discretion in granting the amendment to the particulars of claim. The amendment did not render the claim excipiable nor did it contravene the Currency and Exchanges Act, 9 of 1933, or its regulations. The appellant failed to demonstrate that it would suffer prejudice as a result of the amendment. The principles governing amendments to pleadings require that amendments be allowed unless they are excipiable or prejudicial, and in this case, neither ground was established. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Currency And Exchanges Act
• Judicial Discretion
• Leave To Amend