Barclays Zimbabwe Nominees (Pvt) Ltd v Black
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Judge | Botha JA, Milne JA, F H Grosskopf JA, Friedman AJA, Nienaber AJA |
Judgment Date | 14 September 1990 |
Citation | 1990 (4) SA 720 (A) |
Hearing Date | 30 August 1990 |
Court | Appellate Division |
Milne JA:
The question for decision in this case is whether a company is entitled to bring a private prosecution. It arose in the following circumstances. The Attorney-General for the Witwatersrand Local Division declined to prosecute the respondent on certain charges of fraud and perjury and issued a certificate to that effect in terms of s 7(2)(a) of J the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The appellant, a company
Milne JA
A incorporated in Zimbabwe, then purported to institute a prosecution against the respondent on such charges in the regional court in terms of s 7(1)(a) of that Act. The respondent gave due notice of his intention to plead, in terms of s 106(1)(h), that the appellant had no title to prosecute. This plea was based on the contention that the appellant, being a company, was not a 'private person' within the meaning of s B 7(1)(a). The regional magistrate dismissed the plea without giving any reasons. The trial then proceeded and the respondent was convicted of fraud. He appealed to the Witwatersrand Local Division against his conviction on the ground that the magistrate had wrongly dismissed the plea that the appellant had no title to prosecute, and on the further ground that the evidence in any event failed to establish his guilt. The C Court a quo upheld the plea. Smit J also held that, in any event, the guilt of the respondent had not been proved. Schabort J however declined to express a view on the merits of the conviction because the issue had not been canvassed in argument. Leave to appeal was granted by the Court a quo on the question of whether the appellant had, in law, title to D prosecute.
Section 7(1) is in the following terms:
'In any case in which an Attorney-General declines to prosecute for an alleged offence -
any private person who proves some substantial and peculiar interest in the issue of the trial arising out of some injury which E he individually suffered in consequence of the commission of the said offence;
a husband, if the offence was committed in respect of his wife;
the wife or child or, if there is no wife or child, any of the next of kin of any deceased person, if the death of such person is alleged to have been caused by the said offence; or
the legal guardian or curator of a minor or lunatic, if the said F offence was committed against his ward,
may, subject to the provisions of s 9, either in person or by a legal representative, institute and conduct a prosecution in respect of such an offence in any court competent to try that offence.'
The Afrikaans version, which is the signed version, reads as follows;
'In 'n geval waar 'n Prokureur-generaal weier om weens 'n beweerde G misdryf te vervolg, kan -
'n privaat persoon wat by die geskil in die verhoor 'n wesenlike en besondere belang bewys wat uit benadeling ontstaan wat hy persoonlik ten gevolge van die pleging van bedoelde misdryf gely het;
'n eggenoot, indien bedoelde misdryf ten opigte van sy eggenote gepleeg is;
die eggenote of kind of, indien daar geen eggenote of kind is nie, H 'n naasbestaande van 'n oorledene, indien die oorledene se dood na bewering deur bedoelde misdryf veroorsaak is; of
die wettige voog of kurator van 'n minderjarige of kranksinnige, indien bedoelde misdryf teen sy pupil gepleeg is,
behoudens die bepalings van art 9, hetsy persoonlik of deur 'n regsverteenwoordiger, 'n vervolging ten opsigte van so 'n misdryf instel I en voortsit in 'n hof wat bevoeg is om daardie misdryf te bereg.'
Mr Rubens for the appellant submitted that:
In terms of s 2(b) of the Interpretation Act 33 of 1957, the word 'person' in s 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act must be J construed as including 'any company incorporated or registered as
Milne JA
A such under any law' unless the context 'otherwise requires' or unless it was 'otherwise provided'.
The context does not 'otherwise' require nor is there anything in the Criminal Procedure Act to indicate that the provisions of the Interpretation Act do not apply to it nor that the definition of 'person' does not apply.
B There is no good reason in principle why a company should not be able to conduct a private prosecution.
This is an attractive argument but an analysis of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act satisfies me that it cannot succeed.
I assume in favour of the appellant that, although it was incorporated C in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and there is nothing to indicate that it has been registered as an 'external company' in the Republic in terms of the Companies Act, it is 'a company incorporated... as such under any law' in terms of s 2 of the Interpretation Act.
In elaborating his submissions summarised in para (b) above, Mr Rubens D submitted that the Legislature used the word 'private' in s 7(1)(a) solely to distinguish it from a public or official prosecution. There is no definition of the word 'private' in the Criminal Procedure Act or in the Interpretation Act. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no significance in the use of the phrase 'private person' other than to contrast such a person with a person holding public office or an E official person. Indeed, The Oxford Dictionary 2nd ed vol XII at 515 defines 'private', in the context 'of a person', as 'not holding public office or official position'. Curiously enough, however, a number of the illustrations provided by the learned editors of the use of the words in this sense...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ernst & Young and Others v Beinash and Others
...1929 CPD 532: dictum at 535 applied In re Anastassiades 1955 (2) SA 220 (W): referrred to Barclays Zimbabwe Nominees (Pvt) Ltd v Black 1990 (4) SA 720 (A): referred to Beinash v Wixley 1997 (3) SA 721 (SCA): dictum at 734G applied Bernstein and Others v Bester and Others NNO 1996 (2) SA 751......
-
2016 index
...v S [2007] 3 All SA 465 (SCA) ............................................... 309Barclays Zimbabwe Nominees (Pty) (Ltd) v Black 1990 (4) SA 720 (AD) ............................................................................................. 26Black v Barclays Zimbabwe Nominees (Pvt) Ltd 1......
-
Die Effek van Likwidasie op Arbitrasies
...Company Law (2012) 2 9139 AMS Market ing Co (Pty) Ltd v Holzma n 1983 3 SA 263 (W) 269; Barclays Zimbabwe Nomi nees (Pvt) Ltd v Black 1990 4 SA 720 (A) 726 40 Cronje NO v Hillcrest Vill age (Pty) Ltd 2009 6 SA 12 (HHA); AL Stande r “Die Aan spreeklik heid van ’n Insolvente Maat skappy en di......
-
The Prescription Period Applicable to a Debt Secured by Notarial Bond
...Glen Anil Deve lopment Corpor ation v Hill Samuel (S A) Ltd 1982 1 SALR 103 (A) 109A; Barclays Zimbabwe No minees (Pvt) Ltd v Blac k 1990 4 SALR 720 (A) 723E-F.31 S 65(1) of the Interim Constitut ion (repealed), reprinted in DA Basson South Africa’s Interim C onstitut ion: Text and Notes (1......
-
Ernst & Young and Others v Beinash and Others
...1929 CPD 532: dictum at 535 applied In re Anastassiades 1955 (2) SA 220 (W): referrred to Barclays Zimbabwe Nominees (Pvt) Ltd v Black 1990 (4) SA 720 (A): referred to Beinash v Wixley 1997 (3) SA 721 (SCA): dictum at 734G applied Bernstein and Others v Bester and Others NNO 1996 (2) SA 751......
-
Phillips v Botha
...H The substance of this elucidation of the legislative purpose was cited with approval in Barclays Zimbabwe Nominees (Pvt) Ltd v Black 1990 (4) SA 720 (A). It is clear that Van den Heever AJP, in stating the principles as he did, was addressing only that part of the section which relates to......
-
Cohen v Cohen
...(Commission for Gender Equality, as Amicus Curiae) 2003 (2) SA 363 (CC): distinguished Barclays Zimbabwe Nominees (Pvt) Ltd v Black 1990 (4) SA 720 (A): compared D Cohen v Cohen 2002 (2) SA 571 (C): reversed on Engels v Allied Chemical Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd and Another 1993 (4) SA 45 (Nm)......
-
Phillips v Botha
...(E) G A-Team Drankwinkel BK en 'n Ander v Botha en 'n Ander NNO 1994 (1) SA 1 (A) at 11C Barclays Zimbabwe Nominees (Pvt) Ltd v Black 1990 (4) SA 720 (A) at 722G—I, 726D—G Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Insolvent Estate Botha t/a Trio Kulture 1990 (2) SA 548 (A) at 556F H Dependable Alum......
-
2016 index
...v S [2007] 3 All SA 465 (SCA) ............................................... 309Barclays Zimbabwe Nominees (Pty) (Ltd) v Black 1990 (4) SA 720 (AD) ............................................................................................. 26Black v Barclays Zimbabwe Nominees (Pvt) Ltd 1......
-
Die Effek van Likwidasie op Arbitrasies
...Company Law (2012) 2 9139 AMS Market ing Co (Pty) Ltd v Holzma n 1983 3 SA 263 (W) 269; Barclays Zimbabwe Nomi nees (Pvt) Ltd v Black 1990 4 SA 720 (A) 726 40 Cronje NO v Hillcrest Vill age (Pty) Ltd 2009 6 SA 12 (HHA); AL Stande r “Die Aan spreeklik heid van ’n Insolvente Maat skappy en di......
-
The Prescription Period Applicable to a Debt Secured by Notarial Bond
...Glen Anil Deve lopment Corpor ation v Hill Samuel (S A) Ltd 1982 1 SALR 103 (A) 109A; Barclays Zimbabwe No minees (Pvt) Ltd v Blac k 1990 4 SALR 720 (A) 723E-F.31 S 65(1) of the Interim Constitut ion (repealed), reprinted in DA Basson South Africa’s Interim C onstitut ion: Text and Notes (1......
-
Die Aanspreeklikheid van ’n Insolvente Maatskappy en die Likwidateur van ’n Insolvente Maatskappy vir Vergoeding as gevolg van Omgewingsbenadeling
...Marketing Co (Pty) Ltd v Holzman and Another 1983 (3) SA 263 (W) op 269; BarclaysZimbabwe Nominees (Pvt) Ltd v Black 1990 (4) SA 720 (A) op 726.93Cronje NO and Others v Hillcrest Village (Pty) Ltd and Another 2009 (6) SA12 (HHA); MagidInsolvency Law op cit noot 6 in par 4.54; Kunst, Galgut ......