Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Esau v Sujean Property Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another (C61/2022) [2024] ZALCCT 39 (11 September 2024)
The Labour Court upheld a Rule 30 objection and set aside an affidavit that improperly attempted joinder, consolidation, and relief against non-parties.
Wessels v Capitec Bank Limited and Others (2024/030523) [2024] ZAGPPHC 390 (22 April 2024)
The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the anti-dissipation interdict sought. While the third respondent, as a cryptocurrency trader, had statutory obligations under FICA to verify client identity and report suspicious transactions, his failure to do so and indifference to the applicant's loss do not, in themselves, prove an intention to dissipate assets to frustrate her claim. The evidence does not support a finding that the third respondent is dealing with his assets with the requisite intention. In the absence of such evidence, the requirements for an interim interdict ar…
Source excerpt
AD Trade Belgium SPRL Private Limited v Central Bank of Guinea and Others (57858/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 300; [2024] 2 All SA 806 (GP) (5 April 2024)
The court held that Rule 21 of the Uniform Rules of Court applies to all parties to proceedings, including defendants who have not filed a plea and who elect to abide by the court's decision. Standard Bank, as a party to the litigation, can be compelled to deliver further particulars if such particulars are strictly necessary for trial preparation. The court found that the information sought by Ad Trade regarding the ownership, control, and transactions of the disputed accounts is central to the issues in the main action and necessary to prevent surprise at trial. Standard Bank's obligations…
Source excerpt
Nedbank Ltd v Chlorcape (Pty) Ltd (2022-056297) [2024] ZAGPJHC 218 (4 March 2024)
The High Court upheld three exceptions to particulars of claim in a banking delict case, struck out claims against Nedbank, and granted leave to amend.
Ndudane and Others v Financial Intelligence Centre (EC/01/22) [2024] ZAWCHC 38; 2024 (5) SA 549 (WCC) (13 February 2024)
The applicants established a legal right to access the information held by the FIC under section 32(1) of the Constitution and sections 40 and 41 of FICA. The court found that the Equality Court has the power to grant interlocutory orders for access to information necessary for the determination of the main complaint. The information sought is material to the applicants' allegations of unfair discrimination and unequal treatment by the banks. The FIC's objections regarding lack of legal entitlement, non-compliance with PAIA, and non-joinder of affected entities were rejected. The court held t…
Source excerpt
Nedbank Limited v Houtbosplaas (Pty) Ltd and Another (164/2021) [2022] ZASCA 69; [2022] 3 All SA 361 (SCA); 2022 (6) SA 140 (SCA) (19 May 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Nedbank unlawfully refused to close two companies’ accounts and was liable for mora interest after delaying transfer of their funds.
Penquin Airtime (Pty) Ltd v FirstRand Bank Limited t/a First National Bank (20358 / 2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 776 (4 December 2021)
The court dismissed FNB’s exception to a claim for pure economic loss arising from alleged failures to monitor a suspect bank account and prevent withdrawals.
Harlyn Trading International (Pty) Ltd v The Financial Intelligence Centre and Another (A267/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 618 (20 September 2021)
The court dismissed an appeal against an FIC administrative sanction, holding that the 10% baseline penalty was only a guideline and that mitigation was considered.
Economic Freedom Fighters v Ramaphosa and Others (36809/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 457 (20 July 2021)
The High Court refused to uplift the sealing of an FIC report, holding that the applicant had no established right to disclosure and costs followed.
Nedbank Limited v Houtbosplaas (Pty) Ltd and Another (68087/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 220 (17 March 2020)
The Court held that Nedbank's grounds for leave to appeal were without merit. The interpretation of Regulation 7(f)(ii) requires reference to the Memorandum of Incorporation to determine voting rights, including those of preferential shareholders. Nedbank's exclusion of preferential shareholders in its calculation was incorrect. The Court's reference to section 218(4) of FICA was obiter and not dispositive; the main judgment was based on the interpretation of Regulation 7(f)(ii). Regulation 15 does not restrict financial institutions from consulting official sources for verification of shareh…
Source excerpt
Explore more
