9 Aug 2019
The judge found there was a real prospect that the confiscation application may not have complied with the procedural requirements established in Ngoma and that the applicant may have been denied a proper opportunity to oppose the forfeiture; for that reason leave to appeal out of time against the confiscation order was granted.
7 Jul 2000
Leave was refused because the alleged wrongful acts complained of were private law matters once the criminal investigation concluded and s.50 no longer supported retention; therefore the appropriate remedies are private tort actions rather than judicial review, and the court would not grant leave.
18 Mar 1999
The court granted the interim relief because, on balance, the detailed undertakings offered by the respondents sufficiently protected the evidential and public interests (inspection, admissions, preservation, restrictions on use and removal), while refusal would cause real and potentially irreparable commercial harm to the respondents; accordingly the court permitted limited use and access subject to those undertakings and ordered costs against the Commissioner.
31 Jan 1985
The appeal was dismissed because the Government Gazette notice (General Notice No.38, 7 January 1983) conclusively established that the Housing Authority had delegated powers under s.24(1) to Housing Assistants, thereby validating the defendant's authority to seize the hand‑cart as an obstruction and/or nuisance under s.24(1)(d); admission of the Gazette as fresh evidence was appropriate in the circumstances.