This blog is co-authored by Anathi Xaba, a candidate attorney.
On 18 June 2025, the Financial Services Tribunal granted three applications for reconsideration and set aside the debarments issued by the financial services provider because the conduct relating to the debarments only became known to the financial services provider after the applicants ceased to act as its representatives. The Tribunal found that the financial services provider “lacked the jurisdiction to debar the applicants” and confirmed that the Financial Sector Conduct Authority should have been approached to debar the applicants instead.
The FSP concluded franchise agreements with the applicants in 2018 to assist it in servicing its clients in the Klerksdorp municipal area. The FSP debarred the representatives on the basis that they had breached the agreements and raised issues regarding the honesty and integrity of the applicants. It was accepted that the alleged conduct leading to the debarment only became known to the FSP after the applicants ceased to be its representatives.
Section 14(1)(b) of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act of 2002 requires the reasons for the debarment to “have occurred and become known to the FSP while the person was a representative of the provider.” The Tribunal refused to apply a purposive interpretation, which it regarded as unsustainable, to the section, finding that the FSCA should have been approached in terms of section 145(d) of the Financial Sector Regulation Act of 2017 if the facts supported the debarments.