Time Barring - B-BBEE Commission
Written by: Nicolene Schoeman-Louw , SchoemanLaw Inc Save to Instapaper
Nicolene Schoeman-Louw | SchoemanLaw Inc
Category: Commercial Law | B-B BEE
The B-BBEE Commission (the "Commission") is empowered in terms of the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act 53 of 2003 (the "Act") and has jurisdiction throughout South Africa. The Commission is charged, among other things, to oversee, supervise and promote adherence to the Act in the interest of the public and to receive complaints in relation to any non-compliance with the Act.
The Commission must execute its functions in a reasonable and timely manner, specifically in relation to the investigation and findings relating to complaints.
Recent Case
In Interwaste (Pty) Ltd and Others v Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Commission and Others (34095/21) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1179 (5 July 2023), the Pretoria High Court dealt with an application to review and set aside the final findings of the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Commission (the "Commission").
On 3 February 2021, the Commission issued its final findings following an investigation based on a complaint by Mr Juris Ronny Mekgwe, which he had lodged four and half years before on 17 August 2016. In its final findings, the Commission found that the applicants had committed the offence of fronting and had undermined the objectives of the Act.
Notably, the Commission had failed to comply with Regulation 15(4) of the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Regulations of 2016 (the "Regulations"). According to this regulation, a complaint must be investigated, findings must be made, and a report must be issued within one year from the date when the complaint was laid.
The Court noted that the Regulations provided for an extension of one year in terms of Regulation 15(15):
"(15) If the Commission is of the view that more time is warranted to conclude its process in respect of an investigation as contemplated in sub-Regulation (8), the Commission must inform the complainant of the need to extend the time, the circumstances warranting a longer period, and the exact period required as an extension."
The Court held that it is a matter of logic that Regulation 15(15) should be implemented before the investigation period expires and that Regulation 15(4) would be of no consequence if an extension could be granted any time after the expiry of the one year.
There were numerous extensions. The Court observed that after having received the further extension from Mr Mekgwe for six months on 13 September 2018, the Commission, in any event, still needs to finalise its investigation within the six months as requested. Instead, the Commission only issued its findings on 3 February 2021, i.e., two years after the last extension for it to file the final findings.
The Commission alleged that capacity constraints caused the extraordinary delay. In this regard, the Commission explained in its answering affidavit that the official who dealt with the report resigned from the service of the Commission at the end of June. The Court held that the relevant official was not involved and did not sign any of the reports compiled by the Commission. In light of these circumstances, the Court rejected the evidence that the delay was caused by the "official who dealt with the report".
Legal Principles
The Commission further argued that it should be held that the time bar in Regulation 15(4) is merely procedural and not a substantive one, as it would defeat the Act's purpose and undermine the Commission's work. In this regard, the Court held that the Commission did not take cognisance of the fact that a pending investigation by the Commission may have devastating consequences on the accused party in conducting its business while under investigation for an indeterminate period.
In conclusion, the Court stated that even if it was found that the time bar in Regulation 15(4) is condonable by the Court, there was no application or any reliable or credible evidence before the Court that would constitute an application for condonation or that would constitute good cause for condoning the Commission's reckless delay in finalising its investigation.
The Court accordingly found that the Commission acted beyond its powers when it issued its findings in breach of the empowering provisions of Regulation 15(4).
In light of the above, and for other reasons, the Court held that the decisions and final findings of the Commission were tainted to the extent that they were irregular and in violation of PAJA as well as the principle of legality. In addition, the Court held that once a ground of review under PAJA has been established, the Court is enjoined to declare the decision or finding unlawful. Consequently, the Court ordered that the final findings made by the Commission were unconstitutional, unlawful and invalid, and, therefore, reviewed and set aside.
Conclusion
Where the Commission has failed to issue its final findings within the prescribed one-year period in Regulation 15(4) and has failed to obtain extensions under Regulation 15(15) properly, there may be grounds for review. Contact an expert at SchoemanLaw for assistance.
Nicolene Schoeman-Louw | SchoemanLaw Inc
Specialist B-B BEE, Commercial and Contract Law Attorney
https://schoemanlaw.co.za/our-services/broad-based-black-economic-empowerment-bbbee/
SchoemanLaw Inc Attorneys, Conveyancers and Notaries Public is a boutique law firm offering its clients access to high quality online legal documents and agreements, together with a wide range of legal services. The firm has an innovative and entrepreneurial mindset that distinguishes it from other law firms. We apply our first-hand understanding of the challenges facing entrepreneurs (regardless of their business size) to develop proven, practical solutions incorporating legal compliance, risk aversion and business sense. We achieve this by offering clients tailored, yet holistic support comprising of legal gap analysis, the design of tailored legal solutions and the practical implementation thereof through training and automation. With your personal interests in mind, our ultimate aim is to implement measures that protect the results of your hard work as effectively as possible.
Latest from
- Bridging Work and Home - A Conveyancing Approach to Employee Tenancies.
- Suretyships in Commercial Contracts - What Every Business Should Know
- Navigating South Africa’s Labour Law Reform - Proposed Amendments to the Labour Relations Act
- Review Applications in South African Labour Law - Legal Constraints and Procedural Discipline
- Parental Alienation in South Africa - A Silent Form of Emotional Abuse in Family Law Disputes
- Market Trust Starts Inside - Aligning Your Legal Documents with Your Marketing Message
- Exploring Suretyship - Capacity, Liabilities, and Types of Sureties.
- The "Without Prejudice" Rule Under Fire - Recent Developments in South African Law
- Navigating the Storm - How Rule 43 and Rule 58 Applications Provide a Lifeline During Divorce
- Beyond the Traditional - Execution of Judgments Through Attachment of Bank Accounts
- Guardianship vs Custody in South Africa - What Parents Need to Know When Travelling Abroad with a Minor
- What steps can I take if someone registers a domain name that is too similar to mine?
- Understanding the Revised Automotive Aftermarket Guidelines for Competition (R2R)
- Considering Artificial Intelligence, the responsibility of Employee management
- Mistake, Misrepresentation, and Duress - When Can a Business Escape a Contract?
The Pulse Latest Articles
- This Father’s Day, Raise A Pura To The Dads Who Keep It Real (June 13, 2025)
- Winter Hydration Just Got A Glow Up (June 10, 2025)
- Work From Anywhere: Emails, Elephants & Espresso: The New Office Life (June 10, 2025)
- Xlink Crowned Technology Company Of The Year At The Africa Tech Week Awards 2025 (June 5, 2025)
- Celebrate International Day Of Play With The Weirdest (and Most Wonderful) Toys Of 2025 (June 4, 2025)