Kruger & Co – Page 25

Oct 26

0

Fired for a Racist Facebook Post

By Kruger & Co | Employment and Labour Law

“The seriousness and gravity of offences involving racism and racial hatred cannot be over-emphasised. Employers are under a duty to provide a safe working environment and to protect all employees from harm, whether physical or emotional, whether they are black or white. An employer can be held liable for failure to take any action against its employees who are guilty of such conduct. South Africa is a country plagued by a history of racism and violence and social media plays a significant role in the incitement of racial hatred and violence. The power of such posts on social media inciting racial hatred cannot be undermined.” (Extract from judgment below)

Here’s yet another warning from our courts to tread with extreme care when posting anything online. Social media channels (particularly it seems Facebook) are favourite arenas for insults, threats and incitements to hatred and violence.

“Think before you post” is the only safe option here. Misusing social media unlawfully is dangerous for anyone and at any time – a damages claim for defamation or a subpoena from the Equality Court could be the least of an offender’s worries.

When it comes to employees, the spectre of summary dismissal will always loom large if any form of racism or other serious misconduct is involved.

A recent Labour Court decision illustrates –

Off duty, but still dismissed for a racist Facebook comment

A “general worker” with 10 years’ service in a high-profile company with a multicultural workforce posted a comment on the Eyewitness News Facebook page that all white people must be killed (“Whites mz b all killed”) and was charged at a disciplinary enquiry with two offences –
- Making a racist comment on social media, and
- Thereby acting contrary to the interests of his employer.
At the disciplinary enquiry, the employee denied that he had posted the Facebook comment and claimed that his Facebook page had been hacked.
Found guilty on both charges, he referred a dispute to the CCMA (Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration), alleging unfair dismissal. It was at this stage that he changed his story to admit that he had in fact made the offending Facebook post.
The commissioner ultimately upheld the dismissal as both substantively and procedurally fair, a decision taken on review by the employee to the Labour Court.
The Labour Court dismissed the review application, finding firstly that even if the employer had had no disciplinary code in place “any employee would know that it was an extremely serious offence for a member of one race group to call for the killing of all members of another race group.” In any event, the employee had in fact been trained in the employer’s disciplinary code, and that prescribed dismissal for the offence of racism.
The employer had a duty to protect its employees from racist misconduct and had “consistently charged people for offences involving racism. The last employee that had been dismissed for racism was charged and dismissed for using the “K” word.”
It was irrelevant that the employee had made the Facebook post outside his workplace and outside his working hours as “it is the attitude that persists which, when on duty, affects the employment relationship.”
He had also exposed his employer to a risk of reputational damage and had acted contrary to its interests as per the second disciplinary charge.
The employee’s dismissal stands.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Oct 26

0

Exemption Clauses in Contracts – Fine Print Can Void Them

By Kruger & Co | Contract

“… he did not think that he was binding himself ‘to all sorts of fine print that I can’t even read’.” (Extract from judgment below, describing evidence given by the customer during the trial)

For suppliers of goods or services, incorporating a strong, clearly worded exemption clause (a clause excluding or restricting your liability to the customer) into your contracts is an essential part of risk management. Just be aware of the restrictions that our laws place on them.

As a recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment shows, your first hurdle in enforcing a disputed exemption clause could be to convince a court that the consumer did in fact contract on the basis of that condition –

“In fine print” and “not conspicuously legible” – so not part of the contract

A shipping company agreed to transport from America to South Africa an overhauled aircraft engine.
It failed to make delivery to its customer after the engine was destroyed in transit in the U.S. The shipment had not been insured, and the shippers told the customer that according to their terms and conditions for ocean freight shipments, they were only liable to pay US $500 (about R6,000 at the time) per shipment.
The customer was having none of that and sued the shipper in the High Court for the engine’s full replacement value of R386,140-30. The shipper relied on a series of wide-ranging clauses, incorporated in its standard trading conditions, which limited its liability.
The High Court ordered the shipper to pay up on the basis of consumer protections contained in the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) which make it compulsory to word exemption clauses “in plain language” and to draw them “to the attention of the consumer … in a conspicuous manner…”.
The shipper appealed to the SCA, which, in dismissing the appeal, held that it was not necessary to consider the CPA question because the customer hadn’t contracted on the basis of the standard trading conditions in the first place. The customer regarded his contract as formed by an initial exchange of emails, and only afterwards was he asked to sign a credit application in order to open an account. As he did not require credit, he regarded all that as merely a matter of formality to capture his details and allocate him an account number.
The shipper, held the Court, did not explain to the customer that the credit application contained provisions that excluded or limited the shipper’s liability for loss or damage. “Furthermore, the standard trading conditions and the relevant clauses which [the shipper] seeks to rely on appear in fine print, and are not conspicuously legible. They appear on the second and third pages of the credit application, which can only be read with extreme difficulty and concentrated effort. Importantly the credit application was sent without the conditions being attached and were described by [the shipper] as needing to be completed so that ‘we can start the process’.” (Emphasis supplied).
The shipper must pay up in full, plus interest and (no doubt substantial) costs.

As a supplier, if you want your exemption clause to be accepted in court …

In addition to a general inclination by our courts to consider the principles of ubuntu, fairness, good faith and public policy when interpreting contracts, bear in mind the CPA’s requirements (summarised above) and the need to incorporate your exemption clause clearly and unambiguously into your contract before it is concluded.

As a consumer, read the fine print!

“Education is when you read the fine print. Experience is what you get if you don’t.” (Pete Seeger)

Although, as is clear from the above, you might be able to circumvent an exemption clause, our law will generally hold you to all the terms and conditions of your agreements. The safest course therefore will always be to heed the old legal principle “caveat subscriptor” (“let the signer beware”), so read the fine print, and in any doubt take professional advice before you sign anything!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Oct 26

0

Unmarried Parents: A New ‘Notice of Birth’ Ruling for Fathers, with 3 Surname Choices

By Kruger & Co | Family Law

“Whilst the Act no longer uses the term “illegitimate child” this is implied by the reference to so-called children “born out of wedlock” which continues to perpetuate the common law distinction between so-called “legitimate” and “illegitimate” children. This reference is a stark reminder that we, as a nation, are still grappling with outmoded legal terminology which goes to the core of dignity and equality, not only for the child but also the unmarried father, and indeed the unmarried mother as well.” (Extract from judgment below)

New parents, married or not, are obliged by the Births and Deaths Registration Act (“the Act”) to register their child’s birth with Home Affairs within 30 days.

However in regard to the actual process of giving this “notice of birth”, the Act has always distinguished between married and unmarried parents. In particular, unmarried fathers have until now been unable to register the child under their own surname except with the mother’s permission. Given the importance – to the child, to the parents and to their wider families – of what surname is entered into the population register, it is perhaps no surprise that the validity of the Act’s differential treatment of married and unmarried parents has been challenged in the Constitutional Court.

The Court’s decision is that the relevant part of the Act is unconstitutional and is struck down. The Court: “Children born to parents outside the marital bond are blameless, yet the retention of section 10 of the Act serves to harm children born outside of wedlock. The status of being born out of wedlock, in effect, penalises the child and the unmarried father, and of course the mother too. This differential treatment of children born out of wedlock is invidious and unconstitutional. This differential treatment cannot be justified.”

The practical effect of the ruling, and the parents’ 3 surname choices

From now on, unmarried parents are in exactly the same position as married parents, so that either of them can give the notice of birth under –

The father’s surname, or
The mother’s surname, or
The surnames of both the father and mother joined together as a double-barrelled surname.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Oct 26

0

Your Website of the Month: New – How to Renew Your Car Licence Disc Online

By Kruger & Co | Website of the Month

Here’s some really good news for all of us motorists dreading the annual challenge of queuing to renew our car licences.

The Road Traffic Management Corporation has launched an online payment gateway allowing us to register, renew, and pay for our licence discs on the NaTIS online platform. Read “New online car licence disc renewal portal launched” on MyBroadband for details and instructions on how to use this new facility. Read to the end of the article for news of a planned SA Post Office smartphone app, and FNB’s existing online renewal and delivery service.

Note: This does not relate to driver’s licence cards, for which an online renewal system is planned but not yet finalised.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Sep 27

0

Property Sellers: Why, How and When to Choose Your Own Conveyancer

By Kruger & Co | Property

“A great deal is at stake in the transfer of fixed property. It is generally the largest single asset that a person owns and the transaction for the purchase or sale of a fixed property is probably the most important contract undertaken by individuals” (Law Society of South Africa)

For many of us, our home is our most important asset so when it comes time for us to sell, do everything possible to ensure that your interests are fully protected, that the sale goes through quickly and smoothly, and that you are paid without unnecessary delay.

Appointing the right conveyancer is key here. Let’s have a look at the “Why, Who, How and When” of it…

Why do I need a conveyancing attorney?

Legal ownership in “immovable” or “fixed” property (that is, land and permanent attachments such as buildings) can only be transferred from seller to buyer through a formal registration process in the Deeds Office. This is carried out by specialist attorneys who have been admitted to practice as conveyancers.

Who appoints the conveyancer, and how?

As the seller, it is your right to choose which conveyancer will carry out the transfer.

The agreement of sale (it may be called an “Offer to Purchase”, “Deed of Sale” or similar) should contain a clause specifying the conveyancing (or “transferring”) attorney. Make sure you fill in your chosen attorney’s name and details in the space provided, and do not allow anyone else to dictate to you who to use!

You may occasionally come across an offeror/buyer wanting to appoint their own attorney for one reason or another, perhaps with the argument that because they are paying the transfer costs (which include the conveyancer’s fees), the choice should be theirs. But the fact is that you carry more risk, and there is nothing to stop the buyer from employing another attorney to monitor the transfer on their behalf if they really feel this necessary.

Bottom line – stick to your guns! This is your house at stake, so the choice is yours, and yours alone.

How to choose the right conveyancer

Your choice here is critical. You need to appoint someone you can trust to handle the process with the utmost professionalism –

Speed will be important to you (“time is money”!), and whilst a certain amount of delay is inevitable (there are lots of formalities and red-tape requirements involved), a pro-active and committed conveyancer will keep delays to a minimum.
Communication: Progress updates should be regular and timely, keeping you in the loop at every step of the process.
Attention to detail is also vital. Conveyancing is a specialised field, calling for meticulous compliance with a host of rules and regulations. Moreover every sale agreement will be different, and its precise terms and conditions must be complied with.
Cybersecurity has become a major issue in recent years, particularly around the question of email integrity. You will need to play your part here too (to take just one example, don’t ever take at face value an email purporting to come from your attorneys “advising you of our new banking details”), but knowing that your chosen firm of attorneys has security protocols in place is critical to resting easy that the purchase price will indeed end up in your account.
The need for scrupulous integrity goes without saying – a lot of your money will be at stake here!

When should I bring my attorney into the sale process?

Ideally, from the very start. When you first decide to sell, you will find it invaluable to have your attorney’s advice on how to go about it, whether you should speak to an estate agency, how best to market your property, what pitfalls to avoid and so on.

When it comes to the agreement of sale itself, a myriad of things can go wrong if the contract isn’t professionally drawn to be clear, concise, legally enforceable and configured to protect your interests. So if you are presented with an offer or agreement drawn by someone else, take legal advice before you agree to anything!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Sep 27

0

South Africans – Don’t Lose Your Own Citizenship When You Apply for Another!

By Kruger & Co | General Interest

“… it cannot be said as the applicant suggests that the loss of citizenship takes place without notice and automatically as the citizen in that position has proper notice through the structure of the section of both the opportunity to seek consent to hold dual citizenship and the consequences of acquiring a second citizenship without obtaining such permission. It therefore is not a secret provision but one that every citizen who voluntarily seeks to acquire another citizenship should ordinarily acquaint themselves with” (extract from judgment below)

Note: Many South Africans who need to be aware of this risk will be overseas and/or may not have heard of the High Court decision we discuss below. If you know of any such person, please consider forwarding this to them as soon as possible.

A recent High Court judgment has confirmed that you will lose your South African citizenship if you apply for citizenship of any other country without prior Ministerial permission.

It is irrelevant whether you are South African by birth or not. It is also irrelevant why you want to acquire dual citizenship – perhaps you are living/working overseas, perhaps you want a second passport just to make travelling easier, perhaps you have financial reasons.

How and why you lose your South African citizenship

Dual citizenship itself is allowed, but our Citizenship Act provides that if “by some voluntary and formal act” you acquire citizenship or nationality of another country, you are deprived of your South African citizenship. And Home Affairs is interpreting that to mean that you have voluntarily given up your South African citizenship by your own “formal act” of applying for foreign citizenship.

You are exempt only if …

This loss of citizenship does not apply to –

Minors (under 18 years of age) and
Acquisition of another country’s citizenship by marriage.

How to retain your South African citizenship

The good news is that you can apply through Home Affairs for authority to retain your SA citizenship – but your application must be approved before you acquire your second citizenship.

The bad news is that it takes time, so don’t leave it to the last minute! Even before the pandemic, processing time was given as “3 to 6 months” and media reports suggest that delays are now much longer, although perhaps the publicity surrounding the High Court case in question will assist in improving the situation. If you are overseas, you should find the necessary forms and instructions on your local SA Embassy/Mission/Consulate website.

You’ve lost your citizenship – what now?

This is very much second prize, but you can still apply to get your citizenship back –

If you were a citizen by birth or descent you can apply for reinstatement only if you have returned to, or are living in, South Africa permanently (you still have permanent residence, you just aren’t a citizen).
If you were a citizen by naturalisation, you must re-apply for permanent residence or apply for exemption thereof, before you can be considered for resumption of citizenship.
If all else fails, consider taking the legal route. As we discuss below, the High Court has recently held that the relevant provisions of the Citizenship Act pass Constitutional muster, but there is talk of a possible appeal.

High Court: Choose how important your citizenship is to you, and know the law

There has always been speculation that this section of the Citizenship Act could be held to be unconstitutional. However, in rejecting a recent application to that effect by the Democratic Alliance, the High Court has confirmed that it passes constitutional muster and is not “irrational”.

The High Court’s reasoning was that “It is ultimately a matter of personal choice what weight each of us attaches to the idea of our citizenship”, and that this is not a case of automatic loss of citizenship without notice but rather it “is really about personal and individual choices people make about their future and often choices come with consequences.”

The section in question, held the Court, is “not a secret provision but one that every citizen who voluntarily seeks to acquire another citizenship should ordinarily acquaint themselves with … while it may be arguable that citizens cannot be expected to know every feature of the law, those citizens involved in migration and relocation to other countries with the possibility of acquiring citizenship there must surely be expected to acquaint themselves with the law in that area of activity they are involved in.”

There is talk of an appeal but for now at least, if you have already lost your citizenship your options are limited to those set out above.

P.S. Never let your SA passport lapse!

Although you can travel freely around the world on your second passport, you must enter and depart from South Africa on your valid SA passport. Keep renewing it!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Sep 27

0

Employers – Walking the “Compulsory Covid-19 Jab” Tightrope

By Kruger & Co | Employment and Labour Law

“Employers should find a reasonable resolution that accommodates all parties where employees refuse to be vaccinated for medical and constitutional grounds” (Ministry of Employment and Labour)

As the Covid-19 pandemic continues to wreak havoc around the world, an increasing number of businesses find themselves walking a tightrope between their obligations to, on the one hand, both protect the public and provide a safe and healthy workplace, and on the other hand to respect the individual constitutional rights of employees to make their own choices in matters of bodily and psychological integrity, religion, belief and opinion.

These deeply conflicting rights and obligations have left employers asking themselves questions like: “Must we insist on our employees having the vaccination to protect their colleagues, our visitors, our customers and the public at large?” and “If so, can we actually force unwilling employees to get jabbed or are we in for unfair practice or wrongful dismissal claims?”

The Minister’s “Amended Consolidated Direction”

On 11 June 2021 the Minister of Employment and Labour issued an “Amended Consolidated Direction on Occupational Health and Safety Measures in Certain Workplaces” under the National Disaster Regulations in an attempt to address those questions.

The Direction is long, detailed and complex, setting out a host of “minimum measure” requirements for workplace safety during the pandemic, so specific professional advice is essential here. But in a nutshell there is now an official guideline for employers wanting to make vaccination compulsory or partially compulsory. At a minimum, comply with all these specified obligations –

Undertake a risk assessment
This risk assessment (supposed to have been completed by 2 July 2021) was to determine (a) whether vaccinations were to be made mandatory considering the “operational requirements of the workplace” and if so (b) who was to be compulsorily vaccinated, taking into account the risk of transmission to employees through their work and their risk for severe Covid-19 disease or death due to their age or co-morbidities.In assessing whether or not your particular workplace needs a mandatory vaccination policy, include factors such as the ongoing requirement to enable employees to work from home where possible (still applicable even under Adjusted Level 1), the nature of the work in question, whether adequate ventilation is possible, whether adequate social distancing measures are possible and so on – the list is endless.As regards that 2 July deadline, it seems likely that many (perhaps most) employers missed it. If you are in that boat, what should you do now? There is no clear guidance on that, but the consensus of expert opinion seems to be that you should still comply, as soon as possible.
Develop or adjust a vaccination and protective measures plan
Based on the risk assessment, this plan must outline both what protective measures you have in place, and what vaccination measures you intend to implement.
Consult on the risk assessment and plan
Consultation must be with any representative trade union and any health and safety committee or representative. We should discuss under this heading also the questions of communication, education and training. We all know that together with some rational and valid concerns, there is an avalanche of fake news around Covid-19 and vaccinations. Inform your employees fully of their rights, help them to distinguish fact from fake, address their individual fears and concerns, explain the benefits of your plan to everyone, and strive for consensus.
Make the plan available
The plan must be available to an Occupational Health and Safety Act inspector and to the person/s listed in point 3 above.
Other requirements and factors
No list of this nature can ever be comprehensive but consider factors such as paid time off and transport to vaccination sites, sick leave for employees who suffer side-effects, counselling for “vaccine hesitant” employees and the like. There are also defined procedures to be followed when employees raise medical or ethical objections to being vaccinated (for example, the employer may need to try to find an alternative position in the business for such an employee).
And of course every workplace will be different, which leads us to …

The bottom line

There is talk of workplace vaccination being officially made compulsory either across the board or in certain sectors, whilst media reports suggest that an increasing number of large employers are already implementing compulsory vaccination policies on the basis of legal advice received. There is also much speculation that our courts will support dismissal of employees who refuse vaccination in appropriate cases, and there is even a report of a High Court Judge insisting on either proofs of vaccination or negative PCR tests “for the general well-being of all parties in attendance at court”.

Bear in mind however that every situation, every workplace, and every employee will be unique – and with the high stakes involved, tread with extreme care and only after taking professional advice.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Sep 27

0

What SARS Says About Crypto Assets and Tax

By Kruger & Co | Personal Finance, Tax

“The future of money is digital currency” (Bill Gates)

If you are thinking of buying – or have bought – any “crypto asset” such as a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Polkadot, Solana (or any of the many other crypto currencies springing up all over the place), be aware of the tax implications.

As a start, read the new SARS webpage “Crypto Assets and Tax” here, first published on 27 August 2021 and providing guidance on (at date of writing – expect this webpage to evolve!) these questions –

What is it?
How did we get here?
Do I need to pay tax on crypto assets?
How will it work? (With an example of the ITR12 Income Tax Return for the 2020/21 tax year)
How is SARS tracing crypto asset transactions?

There are still grey areas here – and many pitfalls – so be sure to take specific professional advice!

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Sep 27

0

Your Website of the Month: The Best Age to Launch a Successful Startup Is…

By Kruger & Co | Website of the Month

The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission reports (see Moneyweb article here) a record 510,000 new companies registered in 2020 – 32% up from 2019. Clearly the challenges and opportunities presented by the pandemic and its associated economic disruption are at play here. For some, retrenchment has meant having to become an entrepreneur in order to survive financially. Others are taking advantage of new opportunities to disrupt and to innovate.

Perhaps you are considering such a move and wondering if you could be too young, or too old, to get into the game. Wonder no longer – read “Science reveals the best age to start a thriving business” on Leader.co.za.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your professional adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Sep 21

0

Cajee brothers to appear virtually at Africrypt inquiry

By Kruger & Co | Articles, Business, Information Technology Law / Cyberlaw, News

Africrypt directors Ameer and Raees Cajee, who shut their crypto investment platform in April over an alleged hack, leaving investors millions of rands out of pocket, are to appear next month before an inquiry ordered by the company’s court-appointed liquidators.

The brothers went into hiding earlier this year after announcing the hack, saying they feared for their lives after receiving several death threats.

The liquidators’ legal representative, Ruann Kruger, told ITWeb yesterday that the Cajee brothers have agreed to testify on 19 and 20 October through a virtual session.

They were initially subpoenaed to appear before the inquiry last week, but this was postponed after their attorneys asked for an extension in order to consult further with their clients and stating at the time that their safety was still in question.

While a responding affidavit to oppose final liquidation of Africrypt, which was signed by Raees Cajee, contains the stamp of the South African embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, dated 19 July, no one knows – or will say – where the two brothers currently are.

Kruger said the first part of the inquiry, held last Thursday and Friday in Pretoria, heard testimony from Daniel Opperman, Africrypt’s former compliance officer.

Opperman, who was testifying over a virtual platform, told how a few days after the hack took place and two days before the two brothers announced in a statement that the company had been hacked, he met with the Cajees, but the brothers made no mention to him that the alleged hack had taken place.

“[Opperman] said he was very surprised to read about [the hack] in the media,” said Kruger. He added that Opperman will return to testify further at next month’s hearing. Contacted by ITWeb, to confirm the details of his testimony, Opperman declined to comment.

Kruger said the inquiry also heard testimony from Wayne Naidoo and Steve Miller, a director and manager, respectively, of public relations (PR) company Duke Advertising, which signed a 14-month contract worth R3 million with Africrypt.

The contract was to run until the end of December 2021; however, just three months into the contract, the PR company was paid the full amount. Kruger said the fact that the PR company was paid in full before the completion of the contract raised a red flag.

Raees Cajee contends in Africrypt’s affidavit opposing final liquidation that the application was taken out against the wrong company and that clients signed investment contracts not with Africrypt but with an entity called Rae Create Wealth.

However, Kruger said bank statements obtained by Tayfin Forensic Investigative Auditors, the forensic investigators appointed by the liquidators, revealed that all transactions made to Africrypt were moved to Raee Create Wealth. He said this and other evidence is expected to appear in the forensic report on Africrypt.

Contacted yesterday, Africrypt’s attorney Rashaad Moosa of Shaheed Dollie Incorporated Attorneys declined to comment, saying the inquiry is a private inquiry and that as such, he couldn’t comment without getting the permission of the commissioner. However, he said he would be questioning witnesses further in next month’s session.

Earlier this month, a group of investors’ bid to get the court to place Africrypt in final liquidation was postponed to 15 November.

It follows a provisional liquidation order brought by the group, under the name Badaspex, which was granted in April by the Gauteng South High Court against Africrypt.

Article by : Stephen Tim | itweb.co.za