Primary briefing · Gazette
high impact 54783 · Proclamation 317; Notices 3968, 7559 · 2026-06-05
Gazette 54783: FIC Act commencement, safeguard probe on office paper, and 2027 medicine pricing
Comment closes
05 Jul 2026
Proclamation 317 commences sections 30, 54, 55 and 70 of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001, imposing new compliance obligations on accountable institutions with immediate effect. The same gazette initiates a safeguard investigation into increased imports of A3/A4 office paper (Notice 3968), which could result in protective duties. Notice 7559 publishes the annual Single Exit Price Adjustment for medicines for 2027, resetting the regulated pricing framework for the pharmaceutical supply chain. Additional items include the 2025 Employment Equity Public Register (Notice 7557), plant breeders' rights applications with objection deadlines, ECSA draft disciplinary rules open for comment until 5 July 2026, and IRBA EDCOM nominations closing 26 June 2026.
Who is affected
Accountable institutions under the FIC Act (banks, insurers, estate agents, attorneys, etc.)Pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors subject to SEP regulationImporters and local producers of A3/A4 office paperDesignated employers listed on the Employment Equity Public RegisterPlant breeders and seed companiesRegistered professional engineers (ECSA disciplinary rules) What this means for practitioners
Accountable institutions must assess compliance with newly commenced ss 30, 54, 55 and 70 of the FIC Act immediately
Pharmaceutical pricing teams should review the 2027 SEP Adjustment and update pricing models
Paper importers and local producers should monitor the safeguard investigation and consider submissions to ITAC
Plant breeders: lodge objections to denominations within 3 months and to applications/grants within 6 months of 5 June 2026
Engineers: submit comments on ECSA draft rules by 5 July 2026
Auditors: submit IRBA EDCOM nominations by 26 June 2026
Primary briefing · Judgment
high impact Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou (Full Court) · 2026-06-05
Ravhura and Others (Appellants) v Ravhura and Others (Respondents)
A court granted a section 18(3) order declaring a chieftaincy interdict executable pending appeal. The endorsed draft order differed materially from the ex-tempore order pronounced in open court. The appellants brought a section 18(4) appeal to set aside the execution order, but there was a delay of approximately three months before the appeal was heard.
The court held: The appeal was upheld and the section 18(3) execution order set aside. The Full Court held that the endorsed draft order differed materially from the ex-tempore order and constituted an impermissible variation by a court that was already functus officio, rendering it unenforceable. On the urgency question, the court endorsed the Jai Hind interpretation: section 18(4) imposes no strict time frame and no condonation is required for late prosecution, but the appeal must be dealt with as a matter of 'extreme urgency.' A three-month delay was characterised as unacceptable. The court issued a procedural directive requiring appellants in the Thohoyandou Division to approach the Head of Court immediately upon noting the appeal.
Legal impact: Develops section 18(4) jurisprudence by confirming that no condonation application is needed for delayed prosecution of a section 18(4) appeal, while endorsing the Jai Hind standard that three months is the outer bound of acceptable delay. The procedural directive for the Thohoyandou Division — requiring immediate engagement with the Head of Court — may be adopted by other divisions lacking Caselines infrastructure. The functus officio finding reinforces that endorsed draft orders cannot deviate materially from the order pronounced in court.
Who is affected
Civil litigators handling execution pending appeal under s 18 of the Superior Courts ActPractitioners in divisions without Caselines or electronic case managementTraditional leadership and chieftaincy dispute litigantsAny party seeking or opposing urgent execution of court orders What this means for practitioners
Litigators noting s 18(4) appeals should approach the Head of Court immediately upon filing — do not wait for a hearing date to be allocated
Review endorsed draft orders against the ex-tempore pronouncement to identify material discrepancies that may ground a functus officio challenge
Note that condonation is not required for delayed prosecution of a s 18(4) appeal, but delays beyond three months risk being characterised as unacceptable