Comment: Three cases on jurisdiction

• Citation: 2024 TSAR 343
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2024/i2a9
• Published date: 03 April 2024
• Pages: 343-351
• Author: Malan, F.R.
• Date: 03 April 2024

https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2024/i2a9

THREE CASES ON JURISDICTION 343

[ISSN 0257 – 7747]TSAR 2024 . 2

343

THREE CASES ON JURISDICTION

SAMEVATTING

DRIE BESLISSINGS OOR JURISDIKSIE

Hierdie bespre king handel oor die verei stes om jurisdik sie oor ’n peregrinus te vestig, naam lik arres en

beslaglegging , en die ontwikkeling d aarvan in die Suid-Af rikaanse regspr aak. In sy uitspraa k hieroor

het die hoog ste hof van appèl beslis dat dit onkonstitusione el is om arre s as ’n vereiste vir jurisdi ksie

te stel en as vervanging daarvoor is die gemenereg ontwikkel. Daar is bepaal dat jurisdiksie oor ’n

peregrinus gevestig kan wor d deur betekening van die d agvaarding op hom of haa r in Suid-Afrika en

daarby die best aan van gerieike en toepasl ike faktore wat die hof met die geskil verbind. Regsp ersone

kan natuurli k nie gearresteer word nie en die hof het hom ook nie hieroor uitgespree k nie. Gerieikheid

alleen is dus nie ’n bron va n jurisdiksie nie.

In twee beslissings van die mededing ingsappèlhof is die gemenereg eg ter nóg verder ontwikkel en

is beslis dat jur isdiksie oor peregrini-ba nke wat geen verbinten is met Suid-Afrika he t nie, wel gevestig

word indien hulle deel is van ’n sogenaamd omvattende sameswering met plaaslike en ander banke

om die rand-dol lar wisselkoers te manipu leer. Hierdie twee beslissings word k rities vergelyk met die

uitspraa k van die tribunaal van die nan siële dienste-sektor wat gehan del het oor twee individue, beide

peregrini, wat beboet is te rwyl hulle nie in Suid -Afrika gewoon, ged omisilieer óf teenwoordig wa s nie.

Daar word aan die h and gedoen dat laasgenoe mde uitspraak korrek is e n dat die verdere ontwik keling

van die gemenereg i n die twee eerder gemelde uitspr ake van die mededinging sappèlhof nie oortuige nd

is nie.

1 The cases

The three cases are Competition Commission v Bank of America Merrill Lynch

International Limited ((175/CAC/19 Jul 2020) ZACAC 1, 2020 4 SA 105 (CAC),

2020 1 CPLR 26 (CAC) 28 Febr 2020); Viceroy Research Partnership LLC v

Financial Sector Conduct Authority (Financial Services Tribunal Case A45/A46/

A47/A48/2021 (15 Nov 2022)) and Competition Commis sion of South Africa v Bank

of America Merrill Lynch International ((215/CAC/Apr 23) 2024 ZACAC 1 (8 Jan

2024)). They will be referred to as the 2020 competition appe al court judgment, the

Viceroy judgment and the 2024 compe tition appeal court judgment. The  rst case

was presided over by Davis JP and the thi rd by, as he was later descr ibed, DM Davis

AJA and the second by LTC Harms, the chair of the tribunal, but better known in

other capacities as Har ms J, JA or DP.

2 Jurisdiction

A word about jurisdiction rst. Any discussion usual ly start s with the example of A

on the Lesotho side of the Caledon River, shooting and killing B on the other side

in South Africa. W hich country has jurisdiction to t ry the offender? Jurisdiction is

very much territ orial, an aspect of a state’s sovereignty ensuring that a st ate does not

interfere in the af fairs of another state. There are many exceptions to th is principle;

some allowing for limited extr aterritorial juris diction, and often the result of treaties

and conventions (Achuko v Absa Bank Ltd (ABSA) 2019 JOL 45452 (GJ) par 15

ff). Generally, criminal law is territorial but there are also some exceptions (S v

Basson 2005 12 BCLR 1192 (CC) par 223 ff). Compet ition law provides for another

exception when the “effects doctrine” is considered bestowing jurisdiction on the

“effects” of conduct within a count ry albeit that the conduct took place elsewhere:

“The question is not whether the consequences of the conduct is criminal or, for that matter, anti-

competitive, but whether the conduct complained of has ‘direct and foreseeable’ substantial

2024 TSAR 343

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd