Tjiroze v Appeal Board of the Financial Services Board and Others

The applicant instituted review proceedings in the High Court against, among others, the Registrar of Financial Services Providers. In a notice of intention to oppose, the second respondent mistakenly cited itself as the “Registrar of Financial Services Board” instead of “Registrar of Financial Services Providers”. The respondent applied to amend this error. The applicant opposed the amendment, contending that the notice should be set aside and the main application heard unopposed. The High Court granted leave to amend and later refused leave to appeal. The applicant then brought an urgent application seeking the ex post facto recusal of the presiding judge (Senyatsi AJ) and nullification of the judgments, alleging undisclosed conflicts of interest and collusion. That urgent application was dismissed. The applicant thereafter approached the Constitutional Court directly, alleging infringement of his section 34 right to a fair hearing. Meanwhile, by operation of statute, the Financial Sector Conduct Authority was substituted as respondent in place of the Registrar.

Leave to appeal was refused. The applicant was ordered to pay the second respondent’s costs on an attorney and client scale.

The case underscores the Constitutional Court’s approach to jurisdiction, mootness and abuse of process. It affirms that factual disputes dressed up as constitutional claims do not confer constitutional jurisdiction, reinforces the doctrine of mootness, and demonstrates the Court’s willingness to grant punitive costs orders where litigation is vexatious and abusive, even against self-represented litigants who are legally trained.