Sanlam Developing Markets Limited could not have its debarment decision sent back for reconsideration after the Financial Services Tribunal found that, in the circumstances, sending its notice of intention to debar had not commenced proceedings against the former representative and the statutory six-month period had expired.
In its decision dated 10 September 2026, the Tribunal set aside the debarment because the applicant had not received notice and had been denied an opportunity to answer the allegations.
The applicant had worked as a sales adviser at the FSP’s Kuruman branch from February 2020 until she resigned on 20 November 2025, while it was investigating allegations against her.
The investigation followed a complaint from a client who alleged that three life policies had been issued in his name without his consent, and premiums had been deducted from his salary by stop order.
Sanlam alleged the applicant had submitted the policy applications using forged signatures and had earned upfront commission from the policies. A handwriting expert appointed by the FSP concluded that the signatures on the applications did not match the client’s specimen signatures. After finalising its forensic investigation report, the FSP resolved to institute debarment proceedings.
Address used was not supported by the record
On 19 March 2026, Sanlam Developing Markets issued a notice of intention to debar the applicant and sent it to an email address it said was her last-known address. The Tribunal found that this assertion was not supported by the record.
Only four months earlier, on 19 November 2025, the FSP’s forensic investigator had copied the applicant into correspondence sent to a different email address.
Sanlam did not explain why its compliance administrator subsequently used another address for the debarment notice or provide an employment record showing that the address used was the applicant’s official or last-known email address.
On 15 April 2026, the FSP sent an invitation to attend a virtual debarment hearing to the same address used for the notice of intention to debar. There was no evidence that the applicant received either the notice or the invitation.
The record was unclear about when the hearing took place. The FSP’s written submissions referred to a hearing scheduled for 30 April 2026, whereas the outcome letter stated that it was held on 4 May. The FSP did not explain the discrepancy.
The applicant did not attend the hearing, and the debarment committee proceeded in her absence.
On 5 May 2026, Sanlam sent the outcome letter to the same disputed address. The letter informed the applicant that the debarment committee had decided to debar her.
The applicant became aware of the debarment only after the Financial Sector Conduct Authority had recorded it in the central register and her subsequent employer brought it to her attention.
Applicant was denied an opportunity to be heard
Before the Tribunal, Sanlam Developing Markets acknowledged that the correspondence might not have reached the applicant, and she might consequently have been denied an opportunity to answer the allegations. It accepted the Tribunal might find that she had not been properly notified of the proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the evidence established that the applicant had not received the notice and was unaware of the proceedings.
Before debarring a person, the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act requires an FSP to give adequate written notice of its intention to debar and a reasonable opportunity to make representations. The Tribunal said these requirements give effect to the right to be heard and are central to a fair debarment process.
Because Sanlam had not established that the address used for the debarment correspondence belonged to the applicant, she did not receive the notice and had no opportunity to answer the allegations before the committee made its decision.
The Tribunal found that the FSP had failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the FAIS Act. The failure was decisive, and the debarment could not stand.
Having reached that conclusion, the Tribunal said it was neither necessary nor appropriate to decide the substantive allegations against the applicant. It then turned to the appropriate order.
Why the matter could not be remitted
In its concluding submissions, Sanlam Developing Markets asked the Tribunal to “temporarily uplift” the debarment so that it could correct the procedural defect and conduct a fair process.
The Tribunal said section 234(1) of the Financial Sector Regulation Act (FSRA) did not provide for the temporary upliftment of a final decision. It added that a decision set aside for procedural unfairness would ordinarily be remitted to the decision-maker for reconsideration.
This matter, however, presented a further difficulty.
Section 14(5) of the FAIS Act required Sanlam to commence debarment proceedings within six months after the applicant ceased to be its representative. She resigned on 20 November 2025, which meant the FSP had until 20 May 2026 to commence the proceedings.
The FSP issued the notice of intention to debar within that period. But the notice was sent to an email address that Sanlam had not shown to be hers.
“In those circumstances, the sending of the notice did not commence debarment proceedings against her as contemplated in section 14(5),” the Tribunal found.
The six-month period had since expired.
Remitting the matter would therefore not merely have allowed Sanlam to correct an existing process. It would have required the FSP to commence debarment proceedings outside the period permitted by section 14(5). The Tribunal consequently set aside the debarment without remitting the matter to the FSP.
