Atlantic Ocean Management Group (PTY) LTD and Another v The Prosecutor-General (17 of 2017) [2017] NAHCMD 255 (6 September 2017)

Atlantic Ocean Management Group (PTY) LTD and Another v The Prosecutor-General (17 of 2017) [2017] NAHCMD 255 (6 September 2017)

The court held that the applicants were entitled to anticipate and seek rescission of the ex parte preservation order; the Prosecutor-General improperly exercised her discretion by bringing a second ex parte application after allowing the first order to lapse, and committed material non-disclosures in both applications. Permitting repeated preservation orders after deliberate lapse would undermine the statutory 120-day limit and be unduly oppressive. The second preservation order was therefore set aside.

Citation
[2017] NAHCMD 255
Parties
Applicant: Atlantic Ocean Management Group (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Fish Spain SL; Respondent: The Prosecutor-General
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
6 September 2017
Case Number
17 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Application (motion) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Preservation Order
Outcome
Application granted; second preservation order set aside.
Legal Topics
Preservation of Property Orders, Prevention of Organised Crime Act (poca), Ex Parte Applications, Material Non Disclosure, Right to Fair Trial, Property Rights, Rescission of Orders
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Preservation of Property Orders Prevention of Organised Crime Act (poca) Ex Parte Applications Material Non Disclosure Right to Fair Trial +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Atlantic Ocean Management Group (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Fish Spain SL

Applicant

The Prosecutor-General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application (motion) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Preservation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants had the right to anticipate and seek rescission of an ex parte preservation order under POCA
  2. 2 Whether the Prosecutor-General was entitled to bring a second ex parte preservation order after the first lapsed
  3. 3 Whether the Prosecutor-General committed material non-disclosure in the applications for preservation orders

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants were entitled to anticipate and seek rescission of the ex parte preservation order; the Prosecutor-General improperly exercised her discretion by bringing a second ex parte application after allowing the first order to lapse, and committed material non-disclosures in both applications. Permitting repeated preservation orders after deliberate lapse would undermine the statutory 120-day limit and be unduly oppressive. The second preservation order was therefore set aside.

Court Disposition

Application granted; second preservation order set aside.

Orders

  • The preservation order granted on 26 May 2017 is set aside.
  • The Prosecutor-General is to pay the applicants’ costs, including costs of one instructed and one instructing counsel.