http://www.polity.org.za
Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
Home / Case Law / All Case Law RSS ← Back
Africa|First Rand Bank Limited.|WesBank|Africa|South Africa|Bank|J|South Africa
Africa||Africa||||
africa-company|first-rand-bank-limited-company|wesbank|africa|south-africa|bank|j|south-africa-region
Close

Email this article

separate emails by commas, maximum limit of 4 addresses

Verification Image. Please refresh the page if you cannot see this image.

Sponsored by

Close

Article Enquiry

Naidu v Reserve Bank of the Republic of South Africa and Another (9898/2016) [2017] ZAKZDHC 25

Verification Image. Please refresh the page if you cannot see this image.
Close

Embed Video

Naidu v Reserve Bank of the Republic of South Africa and Another (9898/2016) [2017] ZAKZDHC 25

23rd June 2017

SAVE THIS ARTICLE      EMAIL THIS ARTICLE

Font size: -+

[1] This is an urgent application instituted by the applicant,[1] in which he seeks the following relief:

‘(a) To revoke and suspend the trading licenses of Wesbank, a division of First Rand Bank Limited. A bank duly registered and incorporated in terms of the banking laws of the Republic of South Africa.

Advertisement

(b) Reserve Bank of the Republic of South Africa to reprimand and enlighten Wesbank of their failure to comply with the Banking Code of Conduct, Government regulatory acts as set down by law in the Republic of South Africa.

(c) To pay the applicants claim in reconvention dated 24 day of November 2011 an Annexure hereto attached as (A) for the sum of (four million and six hundred thousand rand with interest as claimed.)

(d) Costs of suit.’

[2] The application which is opposed by the first respondent was subsequently also opposed by the second respondent,[2] pursuant to an application to intervene, which was initially enrolled for hearing on 29 November 2016. On that date, Moodley J issued orders in which the main application was adjourned sine die, and issued directives for the filing of affidavits in the application to intervene as well as the main application. The applicant opposed the application to intervene by First Rand Bank Limited.

[3] When the intervention application served before me on 17 March 2017, the applicant consented to First Rand Bank Limited intervening in these proceedings. Further orders were issued by consent, the effect of which was to render the main application ripe for hearing as an opposed motion.[3]

[4] I must make mention of the fact that even though the applicant did not file an affidavit in opposition to First Rand Bank Limited intervening, I was satisfied that the second respondent had established that it had a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation and was entitled to intervene despite the notice of opposition by the applicant. The nature of the relief which the applicant sought impacted directly on the second respondent and it was entitled to intervene in these proceedings.

  • Naidu v Reserve Bank of the Republic of South Africa and Another (9898/2016) [2017] ZAKZDHC 25
    Download
    0.15 MB
Sponsored by

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE      SAVE THIS ARTICLE ARTICLE ENQUIRY

To subscribe email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or click here
To advertise email advertising@creamermedia.co.za or click here

Comment Guidelines

About

Polity.org.za is a product of Creamer Media.
www.creamermedia.co.za

Other Creamer Media Products include:
Engineering News
Mining Weekly
Research Channel Africa

Read more

Subscriptions

We offer a variety of subscriptions to our Magazine, Website, PDF Reports and our photo library.

Subscriptions are available via the Creamer Media Store.

View store

Advertise

Advertising on Polity.org.za is an effective way to build and consolidate a company's profile among clients and prospective clients. Email advertising@creamermedia.co.za

View options