South African Supreme Court of Appeal Rules Automatic Loss of Citizenship Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has ruled that the automatic loss of South African citizenship after gaining citizenship in another country is unconstitutional. 

In a recent case heard by the SCA, the court upheld an appeal by the Democratic Alliance (DA) brought on behalf of South African citizens challenging the automatic loss of South African citizenship through the operation of s 6(1)(a) of the South African Citizenship Act 88 of 1995.

 

This section provides that a South African citizen would cease to be a South African citizen if they, whilst not being a minor, by some voluntary and formal act other than marriage, acquire the citizenship or nationality of a country. An affected person must first apply for and obtain ministerial permission to retain their citizenship, before applying for citizenship of another country.

 

One Plaatjes, a South African living in the United Kingdom became a naturalised citizen of the UK. Years later, he went to the South African embassy in London to renew his South African passport to learn he had automatically lost his South African citizenship by acquiring British citizenship. The embassy officials thereupon cancelled his South African passport. Mr Plaatjes never wanted to leave South Africa permanently, nor relinquish his South African citizenship.

On behalf of Plaatjes, the DA challenged the constitutional validity of s 6(1)(a). The Minister of Home Affairs opposed the application.

 

Judge Zondi, on behalf of the SCA, said the Minister’s lawyers were unable to point to a legitimate government purpose which the section of the Act sought to achieve “save for a generalised submission that its purpose is to regulate the acquisition and loss of South African citizenship”.

 

The SCA declared that s 6(1)(a) of the South African Citizenship Act 88 of 1995 is inconsistent with the Constitution and is invalid from its promulgation on 6 October 1995. It further declared that those citizens who lost their citizenship by operation of s 6(1)(a) are deemed not to have lost their citizenship.

 

In declaring the section unconstitutional, and backdating that invalidity to 1995, Judge Zondi said others in a similar situation to Plaatjes must “enjoy the benefit of restoration without the need for any further litigation”.

This welcome judgment ensures protection for citizens who acquired citizenship in another country while not intending to permanently leave South Africa or relinquish their South African citizenship.

 

 

The Govendor Case: Validity of Electronic Contracts in SA Law

 

Electronic Signatures: Recognized as Legally Binding in South African Law

Explore the effect of electronic contracts on South African law, as demonstrated in the Govendor case. Understand the requirements of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act (ECTA) for electronic signatures and their validity in the National Credit Act (NCA).

Understanding ECTA and NCA in Electronic Contracts

Introduction: The Govendor case serves as a significant example of the impact of electronic contracts on South African law. This article delves into the court's findings and the requirements set forth by ECTA regarding electronic signatures. Additionally, we explore how the NCA applies to instalment sale agreements and the validity of electronic contracts in South Africa.

In the Govendor case, an instalment sale agreement between FirstRand t/a Wesbank and Govender for a Mercedes Benz vehicle was concluded electronically. When Govender defaulted, the bank successfully claimed the return of the vehicle. However, Govender argued that FirstRand did not comply with the ECTA signature requirement.

The National Credit Act, 2005 (NCA), specifically addresses instalment sale agreements. According to the NCA, if a provision requires a document to be signed or initialed, parties can fulfil this requirement using an advanced electronic signature as defined in ECTA or an ordinary electronic signature, provided certain conditions are met. These conditions include the physical presence of each party or agent during the application of the electronic signature, and the credit provider's reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized use.

ECTA's Distinction: Electronic Signatures vs. Advanced Electronic Signatures

ECTA plays a crucial role in regulating electronic signatures. The act differentiates between an "electronic signature" and an "advanced electronic signature." An electronic signature is defined as data attached to, incorporated in, or logically associated with other data, intended by the user to serve as a signature.

The court emphasized that electronic signatures are now recognized in South African law as equivalent to a written contract. Consequently, a valid written contract can be concluded electronically. Based on this recognition, the court held the electronic contract between FirstRand and Govender as valid, ruling in favour of FirstRand.

Conclusion: The Govendor case highlights the evolving nature of South African law in embracing electronic contracts. Understanding the requirements set by ECTA and the validity of electronic signatures under the NCA is essential for businesses and individuals engaging in electronic transactions. By recognizing electronic signatures as legally binding, South Africa acknowledges the validity and enforceability of electronic contracts.

Concourt Rules Sections of PAIA and Tax Administration Act Unconstitutional: SARS Must Grant Access to Former President Zuma's Tax Records

In 2019, Warren Thompson, a financial journalist, applied under the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA) to gain access to the tax records of former President Jacob Zuma. This application was prompted by allegations made in Jacques Pauw's book, "The President's Keeper," and subsequent support from other sources. The allegations suggested that Mr Zuma had evaded tax, failed to disclose additional income sources, and neglected tax obligations related to fringe benefits during his presidency.

SARS initially denied Thompson's application, citing Mr Zuma's confidentiality entitlement under PAIA's sections 34(1) and 35(1), as well as section 69(1) of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 (TAA). Thompson appealed internally, but SARS dismissed the appeal on the same grounds. Consequently, Thompson and others filed a legal application in the High Court, seeking a determination on the extent of protection for tax information under PAIA.

The applicants aimed to challenge the constitutionality of the statutory prohibition against disclosing a taxpayer's tax information held by SARS. They argued that the prohibition should not be absolute when disclosure would reveal substantial legal violations and be in the public interest.

The relief sought from the High Court included:

(a) A declaration of unconstitutionality for sections of PAIA and TAA that prevent access to a taxpayer's tax information under PAIA by requesters other than the taxpayer, even when disclosure is clearly in the public interest.

(b) A "reading-in" remedy to expand the limited public interest exception in PAIA, allowing broader access to tax information when disclosure serves the public interest.

(c) An order granting access to Mr Zuma's relevant tax records that relate to the allegations and their implications for the public interest.

The High Court granted the relief, and on appeal, the Constitutional Court upheld the order in Arena Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Financial Mail and Others v South African Revenue Service and Others (CCT 365/21) [2023] ZACC 13 (30 May 2023).

The Constitutional Court found sections 35 and 46 of PAIA and 67 and 69 of the TAA constitutionally invalid. It emphasized the need to balance the right to privacy with the rights of access to information and freedom of expression. Thompson's request for access to Zuma's tax returns for the 2010 to 2018 tax years was referred back to SARS for reconsideration in light of the court's order. The Minister of Justice and Correctional Services was given until the end of June 2023 to supplement the request for access to the records.

To allow Parliament time to address the constitutional invalidity, the Court suspended the specific sections for 24 months from the date of the order.

This judgment is expected to enhance transparency in public bodies and among public officials, reinforcing the constitutional right of access to information.

Frequently asked questions about divorces in South Africa

Q:        WHAT IS A DIVORCE IN SOUTH AFRICA?

A:        A divorce in South Africa refers to the legal dissolution of a marriage by a court. 

Q:        WHO CAN GET DIVORCED IN SOUTH AFRICA?

A:        Anyone with a legal marriage under civil or customary law in South Africa can get divorced. 

Q:        WHAT HAPPENS IF I WAS MARRIED IN TERMS OF CUSTOMARY LAW BUT NEVER REGISTERED THE MARRIAGE AT HOME AFFAIRS?

A:        If you were married according to customary law but never registered the marriage at Home Affairs, you can still get divorced. Failure to register a customary marriage does not affect its validity. For more information, please refer to this resource: https://bregmans.co.za/2020/06/02/must-a-customary-marriage-be-registered-to-be-valid/ 

Q:        WHAT HAPPENS IF I DON’T WANT TO GET DIVORCED BUT MY SPOUSE DOES?

A:        In South Africa, the Divorce Act allows for a "no-fault" divorce, meaning that neither party needs to be held responsible for the end of the marriage. If one spouse wants to get divorced, you can try to defend the divorce on the basis that it has not broken down, but the court will likely still grant the divorce. 

Q:        I WANT TO GET DIVORCED, NOW WHAT?

A:        If you want to get divorced, you need to have a summons issued either by a Regional Court in your area or the High Court. The summons must be served on your spouse by the sheriff. There are other considerations you should think about. For more details, please visit this resource: https://bregmans.co.za/2023/04/20/the-divorce-process-in-south-africa/. We highly recommend consulting with a specialist attorney to assist you with the process. 

Q:        WHAT ARE THE COSTS INVOLVED?

A:        The costs involved in a divorce in South Africa depend on various factors, including whether the divorce is opposed or unopposed (i.e., if a settlement has been reached) and whether you are going through the Regional Court or High Court. The costs can also vary based on your attorney. At Bregman Moodley Attorneys, we provide comprehensive cost estimations tailored to your specific needs and desired outcomes. We accept payment terms. 

Q:        WHY SHOULD I USE THE SERVICES OF BREGMAN MOODLEY ATTORNEYS TO ASSIST WITH MY DIVORCE? 

A:        Bregman Moodley Attorneys has over 50 years of experience in assisting clients with family law matters, including divorce. Our specialist attorneys are highly skilled and experienced in divorce cases, and we strive to ensure the easiest, quickest, cheapest, and most stress-free process from start to finish.

 

 

 

 

Deregistering a Trust: Process and Requirements for Termination

What are the legal requirements to deregister a Trust?

Termination of a trust can occur through various means, such as legal operation, achievement of trust objectives, destruction of trust property, or beneficiary renunciation. Regardless of whether it is an inter vivos or testamentary trust, it is crucial to review the trust deed, including any amendments, as it typically outlines provisions for deregistration and termination, along with the specific process and conditions involved.

Before proceeding with deregistration, trustees must settle all financial obligations, including outstanding taxes, debts, or liabilities. Additionally, they must obtain any necessary tax clearances. Furthermore, beneficiaries must receive their entitled benefits or provide consent for the termination and deregistration to proceed.

What happens when a trust is terminated?

The Master will undertake the deregistration process, which involves requesting specific documentation from the trustee(s). Once the required documents are submitted, the Master will close the trust file.

What documents will the Master need to deregister the Trust?

To facilitate the deregistration of a trust, the following documents are typically required by the Master:

1.     An originally signed resolution by the trustees, outlining key information about the trust:

a) Indicate whether the trust was dormant or active.

b) Confirm distribution of trust assets to beneficiaries.

c) Affirm that all trust assets have been divested.

d) Specify if the trust terminated after a certain period or upon the occurrence of a specific event.

e) Declare achievement of the primary objective or the impossibility of its attainment.

f) Confirm closure of any bank account held in the trust's name, if applicable.

2.     The original letter of authority.

3.     A bank statement reflecting a nil balance for the trust, the final statement before account closure, or a closure confirmation letter from the bank.

Once the Master has confirmed the deregistration of the trust and informed the trustees that his file is closed, the Master must direct the attention of the trustees to the provisions of Section 17 of Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1998 which states:

“A trustee shall not without the written consent of the Master destroy any document which serves as proof of the investment, safe custody, control, administration, alienation or distribution of trust property before the expiry of a period of five years from termination of a trust.”