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

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

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

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

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

Ledla Structure Development (Pty) Ltd and Others v Special Investigating Unit and Another (GP 07/2020)

Ledla Structure Development (Pty) Ltd and Others v Special Investigating Unit and Another (GP 07/2020) [2022] ZAST 5 (23 February 2022)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP 07/2020

Judge

L T Modiba

Special Tribunal dismissed an urgent application to release forfeited funds for legal costs pending leave to appeal, finding the applicants had not met Rule 23(10)(b).

• Forfeiture Of Funds
• Urgent Interdict
• Leave To Appeal
• Special Tribunals Act
• Inherent Jurisdiction
• Special-tribunal

South African Reserve Bank v Heystek and Others (A248/2010, 21961/08)

South African Reserve Bank v Heystek and Others (A248/2010, 21961/08) [2012] ZAGPPHC 301 (7 November 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A248/2010, 21961/08

Judges

N F Kgomo, G Webster, A M Phatudi

The appeal succeeded because the appellant demonstrated that the decision-maker, Mminele, was fully apprised of all relevant facts and took them into account when making the forfeiture decision. The forfeiture order was made within the prescribed 36-month period following the blocking of the Money Market account, and the reasons for the decision were adequately set out in the answering and confirmatory affidavits. The purported amnesty granted to the first respondent was invalid ab initio, and did not preclude forfeiture. The constitutional challenges were abandoned and did not affect the out…

Source excerpt

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Forfeiture Of Funds
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Delegation Of Powers
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Amnesty Under Exchange Control

Jacquesson v Minister of Finance (548 / 2004)

Jacquesson v Minister of Finance (548 / 2004) [2005] ZASCA 103; 2006 (3) SA 334 (SCA) (16 November 2005)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

548 / 2004

Judges

Harms, Streicher, Mthiyane, Lewis, Ponnan

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the forfeiture of funds under Regulation 22B of the Exchange Control Regulations does not depend on a criminal conviction or prosecution, but rather on a contravention or reasonable suspicion of contravention of the regulations. The amnesty granted to the appellant under s 20(1) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act related to offences committed between 1982 and 1987 involving the illegal export of capital. However, the funds in question were attached in January 1988, outside the amnesty period, and were not shown to be connected to th…

Source excerpt

• Condictio Sine Causa
• Exchange Control Regulations
• Amnesty Under Promotion Of National Unity And Reconciliation Act
• Forfeiture Of Funds