IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
Case No: 14135/2022
In the matter between:
BRANDENBURG PARTNERS LIMITED Plaintiff
and
FELIX HONIGWACHS First Defendant
RICARDO PAOLO SPAGNI Second Defendant
BLOQTECH SOLUTIONS (PTY) LIMITED Third Defendant
TECHNO PONIES (PTY) LIMITED Fourth Defendant
VISA INC. Fifth Defendant
MASTERCARD INC. Sixth Defendant
Coram: Acting Justice B J Manca
Heard: 11 September 2024
Delivered: 25 September 2024 (by email to the parties ’ legal representatives and by
release to SAFLII)
JUDGMENT
MANCA AJ
Introduction
[1 The plaintiff commenced action proceedings in which it cited seven
defendants, but only claimed relief from five of them. Those five defendants
were Felix Honigwachs (“Honigwachs”), cited as first defendant; Jaclyn Strul
(“Strul”), cited as second defendant; Ricardo Paolo Spagni (“Spagni”), cited as
third defendant; Bloqtech Solutions (Pty) Limited (“Bloqtech”), cited as fourth
defendant; and Techno Ponies (Pty) Limited (“Techno Ponies”), cited as fifth
defendant. The sixth and seventh defendants were Visa Inc. and Mastercard
Inc.
[2] In its original particulars of claim (“the 2022 particulars”), the plaintiff sought
payment of the sum of US$159938.11 from the first to fifth defendants, jointly
and severally.
[3] Those particulars were excepted to in Dec ember 2022 . When the plaintiff
sought to amend the 2022 particulars by delivering a notice of amendment,
that amendment was objected to by the first defendant.
[4] The plaintiff took some time to respond to that objection. It did so by delivering
a further notice of intention to amend in December 2023 (“the December 2023
amendment”).
[5] In the December 2023 amendment, the plaintiff deleted most of the content
contained in the 2022 particulars, and effectively sought to replace it with a
new set of particulars of claim. The December 2023 amendment sought to
remove Struhl as a defendant, and cited a further eight defendants who were
not previously cited.
[6] In para llel with this process, the plaintiff sought to move an edictal citation
application in December 2022, but that application was not proceeded with
after Honigwachs objected there.
[7] On 20 March 2024, the plaintiff took two further steps.
[8] First, it served a notice of application for leave to amend its 2022 particulars
on the basis that it be granted leave to amend in accordance with the
December 2023 amendment.
[9] Second, it launched a further edictal citation application (“the edictal citation
application”), in terms whereof it sought the court’s leave to s erve on the eight
new defendants by way of edictal citation for an order joining them as the fifth,
sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth defendants to the action. It annexed the
notice of mot ion in which notice was given that Gooney Payment
Technologies Limited (“Gooney”) be joined as the fifth defendant; that Venn
Business Solutions Nig Limited (“Venn”) be joined as the sixth defendant; that
Coin Ex24 AG ( “Coin”) be joined as the seventh defendant; that Fireblocks
LLC. (“Fireblocks”) be joined as the eighth defendant; that Altcoin Trader (Pty)
Limited (“Altcoin”) be joined as the ninth defendant; that Paywood Trading
Limited (“Paywood”) be joined as the ten th defendant; that Nedbank Limited
(“Nedbank”) be joined as the eleventh defendant; and that First National Bank
Limited (“FNB”) be joined as the twelfth defendant in the main action.
[10] A draft affidavit in support of such relief was annexed and it so ught the court’s
leave that the notice of motion and affidavit were to be served on Gooney,
Venn, Coin and Fireblocks either by email, alternatively, service by lawyers at
the offices of those entities in their respective countries.
[11] The edictal citat ion application, although brought ex parte , was served on
Honigwachs, Spagni, Bloqtech and Techno Ponies.
[12] The amendment application and the edictal citation application were set down
for hearing on 26 April 2024.
[13] On that day, and after hearing argument, the amendment application and the
edictal citation application were postponed by order of court to 11 September
2024 and all questions of costs were reserved.
[14] In June of this year, the plaintiff launched a furt her amendment application, to
be set down on 11 September 2024, in which it sought leave to amend the
2022 particulars, on the same basis as the December 2023 particulars, save
that all of the defendants who were not cited in the 2022 particulars were
removed.
[15] Those two applications are now before me.
[16] In addition, there is an application to join Altcoin Trader (Pty) Limited,
Nedbank Limited and First National Bank Limited as defendants in the main
action. That application is not opposed.
[17] Before the hearing there were a number of further developments.
[18] Honigwachs withdrew his opposition to the edictal citation application and
tendered to pay the plaintiff’s costs occasioned by his opposition thereto on a
party and party scale. The plain tiff did not accept that offer. They seek costs
again Honigwachs, Spagni and Techno Ponies on a punitive scale.
[19] Spagni and Techno Ponies gave notice in the heads of argument delivered on
their behalf that they no longer oppose the edictal citation.
[20] Furthermore, shortly prior to the hearing, Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs
(“ENS”), gave notice that they had withdrawn as Bloqtech’s attorneys and had
advised Blo qtech in a notice delivered in accordance with the rules that
Bloqtech had ten days within which to appoint new attorneys. Those ten days
had not expired as at the date of hearing.
[21] At the hearing Mr Joubert, who appeared with Mr Pretsch for the plaintiff, was
concerned that this may have caused the court to postpone the matter.
[22] Bloch Tech never opposed the edictal citation application and it does not
oppose the joinder application. Although it objected to the 2023 amendment, it
did not deliver any heads of argument in relation to the a mendment
application before me. Honigwachs, who is also represented by ENS, did.
Those heads of argument, prepared by Mr Webster and Mr Ibrahim, who also
appeared for Honigwachs at the hearing on the instruction of ENS, were
comprehensive and dealt with all the objections raised by Honigwachs and
Bloqtech in their joint objection to the amendment. The plaintiff also indicated,
through Mr Joubert, that it would not seek any costs order against Blo qtech in
its absence.
[23] In the circumstances, I was satisfied that Blo qtech would not be prejudiced,
should the matter proceed in its absence, and it accordingly did.
[24] I now turn to deal with the various applications.
The amendment application
[25] In their notice of objection to the December 2023 amendment (which stands
as their objection to the June 2024 amendment), Honigwachs and Bloqtech
raised four grounds of objection.
[26] First: they contended that it was impermissible to join defendants pursuant to
a rule 28 notice. A formal joinder application had to be made.
[27] Second: it was contended that this court had no jurisdiction to entertain the
claim.
[28] Third: it was contended that the amendment purported to introduce a new
cause of action and that this new cause of action had prescribed.
[29] Fourth: it claimed that the sustainability of the plaintiff’ s claims w as to be
determined with reference to foreign law, and that the for eign law had not
been properly pleaded. They contended that the second, third and fourth
objections were made on the basis that the plaintiff had not pleaded sufficient
facts to sustain a cause of action.
[30] Spagni and Blo qtech also objected to the ma nner in which the new
defendants were being joined to the main action. They also contended that
this court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim, and that the basis for the
relief is unclear. They contended that insufficient averments were pleaded to
sustain a cause of action to pierce the corporate veil, and that the allegations
of fraud against them w ere insufficiently pleaded. They also contended that
insofar as the plaintiff intended to rely on foreign law to prove its claim, no
averments were made in regard thereto.
[31] The June 2024 amendment is substantial , and I do not propose to restate all
that is set out therein in this judgment. I shall do so only to the extent that it is
necessary in order to understand my reasoning for coming to the con clusion
which I have reached.
[32] In the amendment, plaintiff allege s that this court has jurisdiction as
Honigwachs, Spagni, Blo qtech and Techno Ponies are all incola, and that
Honigwachs and Spagni were physically present in this court’s jurisdiction
when they exercised control over the affairs of Blo qtech, Techno Ponies,
Gooney, Venn and CX24. In pleading their case, the plaintiff referred to two
written agreements that it had concluded. The first was an agreement that it
concluded with Gooney in terms where of Gooney undertook, inter alia , to
provide clearing and settlement services in respect of credit card payments
made to the plaintiff. It recorded that Gooney was not a bank, but a service
provider, i.e. it facilitates the processing of transactions, and that it would
provide clearing and settlement services to the plaintiff in respect of credit
card payments made to the plaintiff. In essence, Gooney would collect
payments on behalf of the plaintiff, deduct its agreed f ee, and pay the balance
thereof to the plaintiff. The agreement was in writing and the agreement was
to be governed by the laws of England and Wales. The plaintiff alleged that, in
terms of, or arising from the Gooney agreement, and in performing the
settlement function and receiving funds on behalf of the plaintiff, Gooney
owed the plaintiff certain duties, which included a duty not to misappropriate
funds that it held on behalf of the plaintiff, to account to the plaintiff, to
segregate the funds receive d on behalf of the plaintiff and to pay funds
received on behalf of the plaintiff to the plaintiff , and not to third parties. It
alleged that Gooney was in breach of the Gooney agreement by, inter alia ,
misappropriating funds held on behalf of the plaintiff.
[33] As a consequence of Gooney owing the plaintiff a substantial amount of
money, the plaintiff alleges that it, Gooney, and Venn agreed that Venn would
process transactions on the plaintiff’s behalf at a discounted rate until such
time as Gooney, alternatively Venn, had paid an amount of US$584 237.63 to
the plaintiff. This agreement was also reduced to writing (“the Venn
agreement”).
[34] The plaintiff alleged similar terms under the Venn agreement as to those
found in the Gooney agreement and alleged that the same duties arose
therefrom.1
[35] The amount that Venn and Gooney undertook to pay under the Venn
agreement was not paid. Subsequent thereto, Gooney undertook in writing to
pay the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that Gooney has not paid the plaintiff.
[36] The plaintiff alleged that Honigwachs is a director of Gooney, and that Spagni
is Gooney’s sole shareholder and the director of Techno Ponies. It also
alleged that Ho nigwachs and Spagni were the directing minds of the conduct
complained of in the particulars, and had full control over Bloqtech, Techno
1 The plaintiff referred to these duties as fiduciary duties.
Ponies, Gooney, Venn and Coin Ex24. Furthermore, it alleged that
Honigwachs and Spagni caused the misappropriation of the funds and
expressly directed and caused the execution of a fraudul ent scheme against
the plaintiff. The fraudulent scheme is alleged in some detail in the December
2023 amendment and the plaintiff concludes that, as a consequence thereof,
this constituted a fraud on the plaintiff, alternatively unlawful misappropriation
of the plaintiff’s funds, and that Honigwachs, Spagni, Gooney, Venn, Tech no
Ponies, Bloqtech and CS 24 are jointly and severally liable to the payment in
the amount of US$159 9938.11.2
[37] The plaintiff then went on to allege the legal regimes under Irish law, Nigerian
law and Swiss law, which would justify holding “a perpetrator liable for abusing
offshore earning entities in the furtherance of a fraudulent scheme” . In short,
the plaintiff contended that under the v arious statutory regimes which applied
to Gooney, Venn and CX24 the corporate controllers thereof would be
personally liable.3
[38] In regard to the claim pleaded under claim B, the plaintiff based its claim
against the South African defendants on Aquilian liability under South African
law, as they allege that the wrongful and unlawful conduct was carried out
within the area of this court’s jurisdiction.
[39] In my view, the objections are not sufficient for me to disallow their
amendments.
[39] All four of the present defendants are within this court’s jurisdiction, and to the
extent that the re may be a plea of “ forum non convenience” , that is a triable
issue which I cannot decide when asked to rule on an amendment to a claim.
[40] Similarly, although it is correct that an amendment may be disallowed if it
appears that a claim has prescribed, I am satisfied that there is not sufficient
2 In the detailed allegations contained in the particulars, plaintiff alleges that its funds were paid to
Honigwachs, Spagni, Bloqtech, Techno Ponies and/or CX24.
3 Gooney is an Irish company; Venn is a Nigerian company and CX24 is a Swiss company.
before me to conclude th at the plaintiff’s claim, as formulated under Claim B
has prescribed. Again, it is a triable issue which will be ventilated at trial.
[41] As regards the objection formulated under the rub ric of failure to plead foreign
law, I must confess to having some d ifficulty in understanding the basis of the
complaint. The plaintiffs plead certain duties arising out of a contract which is
governed by the laws of England and a contract which is governed by the
laws of Nigeria. They allege that these duties have been b reached. They do
not plead foreign law. To determine whether the contracts have been
breached the plaintiff s will be obliged to lead evidence in relation to the
manner in which an English and Nigerian court would interpret those
contracts. It is not necess ary for the plaintiffs, at this stage, to plead a
synopsis of such experts’ evidence. At this stage, all the defendants are being
called upon to plead to is whether those duties arise under English and/or
Nigerian law on a proper interpretation of those co ntracts and whether they
were breached.
[42] I was urged by Mr Prinsloo, who appeared for the second and fourth
defendants, to follow the decision in Turkcell.4 In that judgment, the plaintiff
originally contended that the first plaintiff had locus standi on the basis that it
had acquired all of the second plaintiff’s assets, including the claim against the
defendants, in an inter -company transfer during 2004 an d 2005. The plaintiffs
sought to amend this allegation and pleaded, inter alia, that “ the first plaintiff
and Eriksson, became, alternatively, remain parties to the Turkcell consortium
joint venture agreement by operation of the laws of Switzerland, which govern
the Turkcell consortium joint venture and agreement ”. The amendment was
objected to. In dealing with the amendment, the court pointed out that two of
the principles governing amendment of pleadings relate to an amendment not
rendering it vague and e xcipiable, and that when a party wishes to rely on
foreign law which is a question of fact, that is required to be properly pleaded.
In that case, the defendants had objected that the manner in which this
allegation was pleaded was objectionable.
4 Turkcell Íletişim Hizmetleri A.S. & One Another v MTN Group Limited & Five Others (2013/4462)
[2020] ZAGPJHC 244 (6 October 2020).
[43] In finding that the allegation was insufficient, the court held that more is
required than a mere statement that by the operation of the laws of
Switzerland, the law of a foreign country is invoked in a case such as where
the locus standi of the plaintiffs depend on the acceptance and
implementation of that law. It requires that party relying thereon to plead its
case with fairness. The court concluded that a responsible pleader must be
able to ascertain precisely what part of the law is relied upon, as it has to
determine what the principles are, and has to determine if there are any
exceptions that may sustain a defence. The fact that the foreign law is a
matter of fact does not result that those facts are relevant and should be
pleaded with any less particularity than the case in South African law.
[44] It is immediately apparent from the above that, in the Turkcell case, plaintiffs
were relying on “the operation of Swiss law” to establish their locus standi .
The court held that, in s uch a case, the defendants were entitled to know on
what aspects or provisions of Swiss law the plaintiffs relied for that allegation.
[45] In casu, the plaintiffs plead two agreements and the breach thereof. Both
agreements are to be interpreted accordin g to foreign law. There is no
obligation on the plaintiffs, in their particulars of claim, to allege how a court in
England or a court in Nigeria would apply the laws of England and Nigeria in
interpreting the two contracts. In this case, the South African court will require
that evidence be led by relevant experts to apprise the South African courts of
the English and Nigerian law which would be applicable in order to interpret
those two contracts, and by necessary implication, to determine whether there
had been a breach thereof. This is not an unusual situation and does not
require elucidation by the plaintiff in the particulars of claim of that evidence.
[46] I am accordingly unpersuaded that this so-called shortcoming in the
amendment renders the amendment excipiable.
[47] In relation to the piercing of the corporate veil, the plaintiffs have pleaded quite
specifically the provisions of Irish, Nigerian and Swiss law on which they rely
to hold that Honigwachs and Spagni are to be held personally liable.
[48] Finally, there is no need to deal with the objection in relation to the joinder by
way of rule 28. The amendment no longer includes defendants who were not
cited in the 2022 particulars.
The edictal citation
[49] The edictal citation application is no longer opposed by any of the defendants.
[50] That being said, it is somewhat outdated in its present form. The form which
the intendit should now take was debated in court and I propose to make an
order arising out o f that debate. It will cater for developments which have
taken place subsequent to the original application being issued.
Costs
[51] I am going to allow the June 2024 amendment, and the defendants were in
agreement that the costs should follow the result. For the avoidance of any
doubt, the costs order which I intend to make in respect of the June 2024
amendment relates to the costs incurred from June 2024 when the application
to amend the December 2023 amendment was made. That application was
one supported by an affidavit deposed to by the plaintiff’s attorney on 19 June
2024.
[52] As regards the costs of the edictal citation, I am goin g to order that the first,
second and fourth defendants are liable for the costs occasioned by their
opposition to that application, and that such costs will include the costs
incurred on 26 April 2024 when the matter came before Ms Justice A llie and
all questions of costs were reserved.
[53] I am not going to order that those costs be paid on a punitive scale. I am not
convinced by the plaintiff ’s argument that the defendants’ opposition thereto
was unwarranted, and the fact that they have now withdrawn their opposition
is not of such a nature that would warrant a punitive costs order to be
granted.
[54] I accordingly make the following orders:
1. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend its particulars of claim by the
deletion of paragr aphs 3 until the final prayer of the particulars of
claim, and the substitution of the deletions with the particulars of
claim, marked “X”, and which appear at pages 5 to 31 of the
amendment application record.
2. The first, second, and fourth defendants are ordered to pay the
plaintiff’s costs occasioned by the opposition to the June 2024
amendment application on the scale as between party and party,
such costs to include the costs of two counsel where so employed,
and which costs are to be taxed according to Scale C.
3. The plaintiffs are granted leave to institute proceedings to join:
3.1 Gooney Payment Technologies Limited as eighth
defendant;
3.2 Venn Business Solutions Nig. Limited, as a ninth
defendant;
3.3 Coin Ex24 A.G., as a tenth defendant; and
3.4 Fire Blocks LLC., as an eleventh defendant.
4. Those proceedings are to take the form of a notice of motion in
which that relief is sought, and that the offshore entities are granted
one month within which to enter an appearance to defend and
deliver any affidavits in opposition to the joinder application.
5. The costs occasioned by the first, second and fourth defendants
opposition to the edictal citation application are to be paid by the
first, second and fourth defendants, jointly and severally, on the
scale as between party and party, and are to include the costs of two
counsel, where so employed, such costs to be taxed on Scale C.
6. Altcoin Trader (Pty) Limited is joined as fifth defendant;
7. Nedbank Limited is joined as sixth defendant; and
8. First National Bank Limited is joined as seventh defendant.
_______________
B J MANCA, AJ
Appearances:
Plaintiff’s counsel: Adv F Joubert SC and Adv W Pretsch
Instructed by: Primerio Law Inc.
First and third defendants’ counsel: Adv C Webster SC and Adv M Ebrahim
Instructed by: Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc.
Second and fourth defendants’ counsel: Adv B Prinsloo
Instructed by: Hanekom Attorneys Inc.