Case Law[2023] ZAGPJHC 987South Africa
Clientele Life Assurance Company Ltd and Another v Payment Association Of South Africa (2021/42435) [2023] ZAGPJHC 987 (4 September 2023)
High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)
4 September 2023
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPJHC 987
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Clientele Life Assurance Company Ltd and Another v Payment Association Of South Africa (2021/42435) [2023] ZAGPJHC 987 (4 September 2023)
Clientele Life Assurance Company Ltd and Another v Payment Association Of South Africa (2021/42435) [2023] ZAGPJHC 987 (4 September 2023)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_987.html
sino date 4 September 2023
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO:
2021-42435
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO
OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
04/09/23
In the matter between:
CLIENTELE
LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
FIRST
APPLICANT
CLIENTELE
GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED
SECOND
APPLICANT
And
THE
PAYMENT ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
1.
The first applicant, Clientele Life is a long
term insurer underwriting life insurance. The second applicant,
Clientele General
is a short term insurer. I shall refer to them as
Clientele.
2.
The respondent, PASA is the Payments Association
of South Africa. It is the only body recognized by the South African
Reserve Bank
as a payment system management body as contemplated by
section 3(1)
of the
National Payment System Act 78 of 1998
. PASA has
many banks as its members. A list of member banks appears in Annex
AA1 to PASA’s answering affidavit.
3.
When Clientele contracts with a new client it
gets the client to provide a debit order in favour of Clientele. Each
month, the insured
persons pay the premium on a policy by way of
debit order. The insured client’s account with its bank is
debited and Clientele’s
account with its bank is credited.
4.
Clientele has many clients. Over time, Clientele
has become ever more concerned at the increasing rate of debit orders
going through
but then being reversed.
5.
The Rules issued by PASA regarding payment and
the ability of insured persons to reverse payment are the focus of
this application.
PASA has issued EFT Clearing Rules, NAEDO Clearing
Rules and AC Clearing Rules. It is not necessary to set out these
Rules in detail.
At the commencement of the present hearing, it was
common cause that the NAEDO Rules have fallen by the wayside and play
no further
part in the matter.
6.
PASA’s Rules contain what is referred to by
the parties as the Immediate Reversal Rule. Broadly, an insured
person who does
not want to pay or perhaps can’t afford a
monthly payment tells his or her bank not to honour the debit order
with the consequence
that if payment has gone through to Clientele
the credit in Clientele’s account with its bank is reversed.
Clientele does
not have the opportunity to contest the reversal by,
for example, providing the paying bank with a written debit order
mandate
signed by the insured person.
7.
Clientele seeks effectively to set aside the
Rules of PASA to the extent necessary to curb this practice. In
short, Clientele seeks
a Rule change to allow Clientele an
opportunity to provide proof of a valid mandate before reversal takes
place.
8.
Clientele’s main cause of action is that
the money reversed from its account with its bank is its property
under section 25
of the Constitution of which it may not be deprived
except under a law of general application and no law may permit
arbitrary deprivation
of property. It argues that the Rules are a law
as contemplated in section 25. Clientele says that this deprivation
of its property
is arbitrary procedurally and substantively.
9.
Both sides seem to have approached this question
on the assumption that Clientele’s account with its bank is in
credit when
the reversal takes place. Given my order below, it is not
necessary to go into the question of whether or not the amount of the
reversal, the effect of which would be to increase Clientele’s
overdraft, if it has such a facility, amounts to property
or its
deprivation under section 25 of the Constitution.
10.
As an alternative cause of action, Clientele
seeks judicial review of PASA’s decision to make the Rules.
This review is sought
under the
Promotion of Administrative Justice
Act 3 of 2000
, alternatively under the principle of legality. Mr
Cockrell SC, for Clientele argued that I should find for Clientele on
both the
main and alternative causes of action.
11.
PASA resists. It says, by way of preliminary
objection that the Reserve Bank and PASA’s member banks should
have been joined
in the application but have not.
12.
Under
section 10(1)(c)(1)
of the
South African
Reserve Bank Act 90 of 1989
the Reserve Bank may “
perform
such functions, implement such rules and procedures and, in general,
take such steps as may be necessary to establish, conduct,
monitor,
regulate and supervise payment, clearing or settlement systems “
13.
Under
section 3(2)(c)
of the
National Payment
System Act
“
The
Reserve Bank may recognise a payment system management body as
contemplated in subsection (1) if the Reserve Bank is satisfied
that— the payment system management body will enable the
Reserve Bank to adequately oversee the affairs of the payment
system
management body and its members and will assist the Reserve Bank in
the discharge of the Reserve Bank’s responsibilities,
specified
in
section 10(1)(c)(i)
of the
South African Reserve Bank Act,
regarding
the monitoring, regulation and supervision of payment,
clearing and settlement systems.”
14.
Under
section 3(2A)
(a) “
The
Reserve Bank may, if it is no longer satisfied that the payment
system management body complies with the requirements specified
in
subsection (2) and after it has consulted with the members of the
payment system management body, withdraw its recognition of
the
payment system management body.”
15.
Under
section 3(2A)
(b) “
Such
withdrawal of recognition will in no way affect any arrangements
made, including rules and agreements, or authorisations given
by the
payment system management body prior to such withdrawal, unless
otherwise determined by the Reserve Bank.”
16.
In my view, these provisions give the
Reserve Bank a direct, substantial and legal interest in the outcome
of this application which
may be affected prejudicially by its
non-joinder. The purpose of the application is to change the Rules.
PASA does not oversee
the Reserve Bank. It is the other way round.
17.
Regarding the non-joinder of PASA’s
member banks, PASA says that it represents the interests of its
member banks in the Payment
System Management Body but that PASA is
not entitled to represent them in legal proceedings. PASA makes the
point that a change
in its Rules will impact how its member banks
operate and will result in significant expenditure for them.
18.
Under clause 10.1 of PASA’s constitution,
its member banks shall, among other things, participate in the
National Payment
System in such manner as to enable PASA to execute
its mandate to minimise risk in the National Payment System and
PASA’s
members shall participate in the National Payment System
with due skill, care and diligence. PASA’s member banks too,
have
a direct, substantial and legal interest in the outcome of this
case. It is not necessary for me to decide now whether or not a
valid
Rule change could allow a drop in banking standards.
19.
The prayers in the notice of motion make
provision for this court effectively to promulgate, at least during a
period of suspension,
Rules regarding payment. This highlights the
need for the Reserve Bank and PASA’s member banks to be joined.
20.
In the replying affidavit of Clientele, the
bald statements are made that “
I
understand that PASA has provided all its members with a copy of
Clientele’s founding affidavit
“and
“
Clientele has also informed the SARB of
the proceedings.
” In my view,
this is too little too late. A proper opportunity to oppose the
relief sought is required in the absence
of clear waiver which can
only be made with a full appreciation of the right waived.
21.
I make no finding on any issue other than
non-joinder.
ORDER
1.
The application is
postponed sine die, with the question of costs reserved.
2.
In the absence of
waiver of their rights under this order by the Reserve Bank and the
PASA member banks listed in Annex AA1 to the
answering affidavit, the
applicants are, by 30 September 2023 to serve on the Reserve Bank and
the banks listed in Annex AA1 to
the answering affidavit copies of
all the papers in the matter to date, including both sides’
heads of argument and this
judgment and order. Service need not be by
Sheriff. Service by electronic means is allowed provided it is
effective.
3.
If the Reserve Bank or
any of the other banks wish to oppose the relief sought in the
application they must deliver a notice of
intention to oppose within
10 court days of receipt of the papers.
4.
Thereafter, they may
deliver answering affidavits within 15 court days of the notice of
intention to oppose on all issues in the
papers to date, including
the question of remedy.
5.
The applicants may then
deliver a supplementary replying affidavit within 15 court days of
receipt of the answering affidavits,
if any.
GC Wright
Judge of the High
Court
Gauteng Division,
Johannesburg
HEARD : 4
September 2023
DELIVERED : 4
September 2023
APPEARANCES
:
APPLICANTS
Adv Alfred Cockrell SC
083 296
4270
acockrell@law.co.za
Adv
Frances Hobden
084 900 3562
hobden@thulamelachambers.co.za
Instructed by Edward
Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc
011 269 7600 /
083 289 3950
dwanblad@ensafrica.com
/
boosthizen@ensafricaS.com
RESPONDENT
Adv Mohammed Chohan SC
083 326 5513
chohan@counsel.co.za
Adv Anban Govender
072 647 5920
anbang@law.co.za
Instructed by Webber
Wentzel Attorney
011 530 5374
maria.philippides@webberwentzel.com
erwyn.durman@webberwentzel.com
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Clientelle Life Assurance Company Limited v B3 Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd (024527/25) [2025] ZAGPJHC 332 (20 March 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 332High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
International Pentacostal Holiness Church (IPHC) v Minister of Police and Others (2021/14237) [2023] ZAGPJHC 82 (3 February 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 82High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd v Lucic (2022/6034) [2023] ZAGPJHC 768 (6 July 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 768High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Limited v Govindpershad (5835/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 728 (26 June 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 728High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd v Gqwede (576/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 274 (15 March 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 274High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar