South Africa Case Law

Standard Bank of South Africa v South African Reserve Bank and Others (047643/2023)

Standard Bank of South Africa v South African Reserve Bank and Others (047643/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 481 (15 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

047643/2023

Judge

M P Motha

The court found that the applicant lacked locus standi to challenge the forfeiture of the R10 million in the Nedbank Limited account, as the funds belonged to LCC and the applicant's interest was merely speculative. Regarding the Money Market Account, the court held that the Exchange Control Regulations, as currently drafted, do not apply to cryptocurrency transactions or assets, as cryptocurrency is not recognized as currency or legal tender in South Africa. The court emphasized the need for a restrictive interpretation of penal statutes and found no evidence of contravention of the Exchange…

Source excerpt

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Cryptocurrency Regulation
• Forfeiture Of Funds
• Locus Standi
• Pledge And Cession
• Statutory Interpretation

Dr L J Jordaan Inc v Mather (A2024-089565)

Dr L J Jordaan Inc v Mather (A2024-089565) [2025] ZAGPJHC 471 (2 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A2024-089565

Judges

NTLAMA-MAKHANYA, MV NOKO

The High Court dismissed an appeal about a foreign-currency loan and exchange control, finding Regulation 2(1) was misapplied and costs followed the result.

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Authorised Dealer
• Illegal Contracts
• Replication
• Statutory Compliance
• Exchange-control

Ibex Investment Holdings Limited and Others v South African Reserve Bank and Others (2024/085397)

Ibex Investment Holdings Limited and Others v South African Reserve Bank and Others (2024/085397) [2025] ZAGPPHC 351 (23 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024/085397

Judge

S. Potterill

The court found that the SARB failed to provide sufficient factual or evidentiary basis for its claim that the permission for Payment 4 under the 0443 Approval was granted without authority. The SARB's reliance on internal signing limits was not supported by affidavits from relevant officials or documentary evidence, and the delegation of authority permitted the Divisional Head to grant such approvals. The blocking order over R200 million in the SAHPL account was issued without any substantiated suspicion or reasons, and the SARB did not meet the heightened standards required of organs of sta…

Source excerpt

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Blocking Orders
• Judicial Review
• Delegation Of Authority
• Urgent Interdict
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

Drakensberg Farms (Pty) Ltd and Another v South African Reserve Bank and Others (2022-014624)

Drakensberg Farms (Pty) Ltd and Another v South African Reserve Bank and Others (2022-014624) [2025] ZAGPPHC 199 (19 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022-014624

Judge

Botha

The court held that the applicable time limit for review of the forfeiture decision was the 90-day period prescribed by Regulation 22D(b) of the Exchange Control Regulations, not the 180-day period under PAJA. The SARB was not competent to represent to the applicants that PAJA applied. The court found no basis to depart from previous judgments of the division, which held that forfeiture orders under the Exchange Control Regulations are governed by the Act and Regulations to the exclusion of PAJA. As the application was launched outside the 90-day period, it was time-barred. The constitutional…

Source excerpt

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Judicial Review Time Limits
• Forfeiture Of Assets
• Constitutional Invalidity Challenge
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

CRRC South Africa Yongi Electric Company Ltd v Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank (2022/013502)

CRRC South Africa Yongi Electric Company Ltd v Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank (2022/013502) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1212 (20 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022/013502

Judge

LI Vorster

The court found that the applicant's defence, based on lack of mens rea, was not sustainable under the Exchange Control Regulations, which impose strict liability. The discrepancies in the import and foreign exchange documentation, including conflicting invoices, invalid movement reference numbers, and inconsistent values, were sufficient to justify the respondent's suspicion and the forfeiture decision. The court held that the applicant is responsible for the actions of its agents in the process of obtaining clearance and permission for foreign currency transfers. The application was dismiss…

Source excerpt

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Forfeiture Of Funds
• Mens Rea Requirement
• Foreign Currency Transfers

Ibex RSA Holdco Limited and Others v South African Reserve Bank and Others (2023-126938)

Ibex RSA Holdco Limited and Others v South African Reserve Bank and Others (2023-126938) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1030 (7 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-126938

Judge

S. Potterill

The court found that Silver Point Capital, L.P. demonstrated a direct and substantial legal interest in the review proceedings, as the orders sought would directly affect its rights and interests under the commercial agreements and prior approvals granted by the South African Reserve Bank. SPC's actions in deferring claims and restructuring debt were taken in reliance on SARB's approvals, and the subsequent revocation and transfer bans materially impacted SPC's position. The facts presented by SPC were sufficient and not merely secondary conclusions. The court held that intervention should be…

Source excerpt

• Intervention In Review Proceedings
• Direct And Substantial Interest
• Exchange Control Regulations
• Confidentiality In Proceedings
• Locus Standi
• Global Settlement Agreements

Adelakun v First Rand Bank Ltd and Others (17047/24)

Adelakun v First Rand Bank Ltd and Others (17047/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 202 (12 August 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17047/24

Judge

A Montzinger

The Western Cape High Court lacks jurisdiction over the dispute as the cause of action and all respondents are based in Gauteng. Jurisdiction is a threshold issue and must be established before any consideration of urgency or merits. The applicant failed to demonstrate real urgency, having delayed nearly six years before bringing the application, and the purported urgency based on recent fatherhood is contrived and unsupported. The application is procedurally deficient, constitutes an abuse of process, and cannot be entertained by this division. The matter is struck from the roll with costs o…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Urgency
• Exchange Control Regulations
• Forfeiture Of Funds
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Self Represented Litigant

Apis Growth 8 BEE South Africa Proprietary Limited, Apis Growth 8 Limited v SPE Mid-Market Fund I General Partner Proprietary Limited (2023/068926)

Apis Growth 8 BEE South Africa Proprietary Limited, Apis Growth 8 Limited v SPE Mid-Market Fund I General Partner Proprietary Limited (2023/068926) [2024] ZAGPJHC 347 (3 April 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/068926

Judge

CDA Loxton

The High Court held that a ceded guarantee claim was enforceable against the respondent, rejected an exchange-control defence, and awarded the balance plus interest and costs.

• Guarantee Enforcement
• Contractual Interpretation
• Cession Of Rights
• Exchange Control Regulations
• Interest Award
• Costs On Attorney And Own Client Scale

Ecenter Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others v First National Bank Ltd and Another (28904/2022)

Ecenter Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others v First National Bank Ltd and Another (28904/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 318 (2 April 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

28904/2022

Judge

Nyathi

The High Court dismissed an application to compel release of blocked bank funds, holding the applicants should have pursued the statutory review route.

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Blocking Orders
• Mandamus
• Administrative Action
• Judicial Review
• Right To Be Heard

Saleh v South African Reserve Bank and Another (1843/2022)

Saleh v South African Reserve Bank and Another (1843/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 157 (2 January 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1843/2022

Judge

Andrews

The court found that the Plaintiff failed to plead the necessary and essential averments required by the Exchange Control Regulations to sustain a cause of action. Specifically, the Plaintiff did not allege that the money was acquired bona fide for reasonable consideration as a result of a transaction in the ordinary course of business, as required by section 9(2)(b)(cc) of the Currency and Exchanges Act. The Plaintiff's reliance on Regulation 22D(b) in isolation was insufficient, and the pleadings did not bear out the law upon which reliance was placed. The alternative claim for unjust enric…

Source excerpt

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Forfeiture Of Funds
• Exception Procedure
• Unjust Enrichment
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Pleading Requirements