Cross-border declaratory relief affirmed; Rhino BMP signals domestic horn trade by 2027

Government Notice 7369 publishes a new consolidated Biodiversity Management Plan for black and white rhinoceros under section 43(3)(a) of NEMBA, repealing the separate 2013 and 2015 BMPs. The BMP designates the DFFE as interim lead implementing agent pending establishment of a National Rhino Conservation Coordination Committee. It sets five strategic objectives spanning biological management, enforcement, community empowerment, demand management, and responsive legislation. Critically, it contemplates a strategy for regulated domestic trade in rhino parts and derivatives by December 2027 and a proposal for legal international trade in rhino horn to be submitted to Cabinet by December 2030. Near-term deadlines include norms and standards for rhino management by March 2026 and a rhino horn stockpile management policy by December 2026.

African Rainbow Capital (ARC) sought declaratory relief in the Johannesburg High Court after Pula Group LLC cited ARC as a defendant in Tanzanian proceedings claiming US$195 million in damages for breach of a confidentiality agreement. ARC was not a signatory to the agreement, which was concluded between Pula Group and African Rainbow Minerals (ARM) and governed by South African law. Pula Group and other foreign respondents were cited edictally.

The court held: The court granted the declaratory relief, holding that: (1) jurisdiction was established through a sufficiently close connection to Johannesburg — the agreement was governed by South African law, the applicant was domiciled in the jurisdiction, and any order would ultimately be enforced there; (2) lis alibi pendens did not apply because the causes of action and relief sought in the two sets of proceedings were not the same; (3) comity did not require the court to decline jurisdiction where the South African proceedings were not duplicative; and (4) ARC, not being a party to the confidentiality agreement, had no obligations under it and could not be held contractually liable for its breach.

Legal impact: Develops the Bid Industrial Holdings / FSCA v Financial Services Tribunal line of authority on jurisdiction over foreign peregrini based on sufficiently close connection rather than physical presence. Demonstrates that South African courts will grant declaratory relief pronouncing on SA-law contracts even where parallel foreign proceedings are pending, provided the causes of action and relief differ. Confirms that non-parties to a contract cannot be held contractually liable under it. Directly relevant to cross-border litigation strategy for SA companies facing foreign claims based on SA-law agreements to which they are not signatories.