---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

4/11/2016

Case Number: 88570/ 2014

In the matter between:

SOUTH AFRICAN RESERVE BANK                                                                       APPLICANT

And

BARIT, LAWRENCE                                                                                       1^st RESPONDENT

BARIT, SHIMON                                                                                            2^nd RESPONDENT

DUERR, MICHAEL                                                                                        3^rd RESPONDENT

DUERR, SOPHIA MARY                                                                               4^th RESPONDENT

DUERR, JOSEPHINE JOHANNA                                                                  5^th RESPONDENT

DORR, FREDERIC MICHAEL                                                                       6^th RESPONDENT

DORR, CAROLIN CHARLOTTE                                                                   7^th RESPONDENT

DORR, PETER                                                                                              8^th RESPONDENT

DORR, ERNST ALBERT                                                                               9^th RESPONDENT

DORR, ELFRIEDE LUISE                                                                           10^th RESPONDENT

DORR, WERNER MARKUS                                                                        11^th RESPONDENT

GUIZZARDI, GINA                                                                                       12^th RESPONDENT

GUIZZARDI, OSCAR                                                                                   13^th RESPONDENT

GUIZZARDI, MANRICO                                                                               14^th RESPONDENT

HATHORN, CHRISTOPHER BLAIKIE                                                         15^th RESPONDENT

HATHORN, WALTER PIPER                                                                       16^th RESPONDENT

JOUBERT, GEORGE ROLLAND                                                                 17^th RESPONDENT

JOUBERT, SALLY HELEN                                                                           18^th RESPONDENT

HANSCOMB LANG, MICHAEL                                                                   19^th RESPONDENT

SMUDE-LANG, SIBYLLA                                                                             20^th RESPONDENT

LANG, NICHOLAS HENDRIK                                                                      21^th RESPONDENT

LANG, HERMAN WERNER                                                                         22^th RESPONDENT

MUNNIK, ZACHARIA PETRONELLA                                                           23^th RESPONDENT

MEYER, HENDRIK                                                                                      24^th RESPONDENT

MEYER, GWENDOLINE MILDRED                                                             25^th RESPONDENT

HENDRIK MEYER N.O. IN HIS CAPACITY AS

TRUSTEE FOR THE TIME BEING OF THE                                                26^th RESPONDENT

H. MEYER FAMILY TRUST

GWENDOLINE MILDRED MEYER N.O. IN HER

CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE TIME BEING OF

THE H. MEYER FAMILY TRUST                                                                 27^th RESPONDENT

IVO MEYER N.O. IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE

FOR THE TIME BEING OF THE

H. MEYER FAMILY TRUST                                                                          28^th RESPONDENT

PRIEBATSCH, CHARLES DAVID                                                                29^th RESPONDENT

THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT                                                        30^th RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

Fabricius J,

1.

Applicant herein is the South African Reserve Bank. It derives its authority and status from the provisions of Section 223 of the Constitution. It is an organ of State as defined in Section 23 9 and is imbued with juristic personality pursuant to Section 2 of the South African Reserve Bank Act 89 of 1998 ("the Act").

2 .

It has private shareholders. The number of shares a person may hold is restricted by the Act  Sections 22 and 23 provide for this. In terms of Section 22  (1) (a), no shareholder is entitled to hold, or hold in aggregate with his associates more than 10 000 shares. An "associate" is defined, amongst others, as a close relative of the particular shareholder.

3,

The main purpose of the application is to direct the Respondent shareholders to dispose of those Reserve Bank shares which they hold in aggregate with their associates, in excess of 10 000.

4.

The Respondents and their associates are shareholders. In the Replying Affidavit, Applicant has limited the actual Respondents to numbers 1 to 11 and 17 to 28.

5.

The First and Second Respondents are the only Respondents who have delivered notices of intention to oppose and have filed an Opposing Affidavit according to the Rules of this Court. Second Respondent is the son of the First Respondent in whose name the Opposing Affidavit is drafted.

6.

I am however satisfied that all the other Respondents have properly been notified of the date of this hearing and that this was done timeously. It is not necessary to provide all the detail of such notifications in this judgment. It appears clearly from the record that the relevant Respondents are adults who would know, like everyone else, that they are also bound by the Rules of Court and cannot simply ignore them with impunity. No German  Court would  tolerate this either.  Many of the initial Respondents have in fact regularized their share-holding according to law.

7.

The Opposing Affidavit of the First and Second Respondents which comprises some 64 pages is a model of evasiveness, of a delaying strategy, of argumentative nature and even contains unwarranted accusations of ma/a tides. No substantiated defence to the claim which is founded in the Act appears. The authority of the deponent to the Founding Affidavit is challenged on spurious grounds. The deponent, who is a practicing Advocate, ought to have appreciated that the Applicant is merely acting according to the clear, unambiguous provisions of the Act, to regularize the statutory share-holding. Nothing more, nothing less. The Respondents have no defence to the claim, unless the Act is set aside. The First Respondent also has no right, on the present facts, to make any submissions on behalf of the other absent Respondents.

It is abundantly clear that the Respondents have not complied with Regulations 3 of the Regulations to the Act, which were published on 13 September 2010.

8.

Before me is also an application by Applicant to strike out certain allegations in the so-called "Duerr documenf'. It is not necessary to deal with those aspects. This "document" is not properly before me and I will simply ignore any irrelevant or scandalous allegations contained therein.

9.

The result is that Applicant's claim is well-founded in law and based on objective facts.

9.1  Prayers 1, 2 and 3 of the Notice of Motion are granted as against Respondents 1 to 11 and 17 to 28.

9.2  No order as to costs is made.

____________________________

JUDGE H.J FABRICIUS

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

Case number:                                           88570/ 2014

Counsel for the Applicant:                         Adv D. Unterhalter SC

                                                                          Adv K. Hofmeyr

                                                                          Instructed by: Werksmans Attorneys

Counsel for the 1^st & 2^nd Respondents:    Adv M. E. Manala

                                                                          Instructed by: R. S. Tau Attorneys

Date of Hearing:          3 November 2016

Date of Judgment:       4 November 2016 at 10:00

---