Bennets and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (25814/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 464 (6 June 2017)

Bennets and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (25814/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 464 (6 June 2017)

The court found that the applicants' withdrawal of the application was invalid as it did not comply with Rule 41, since the matter had already been set down and no consent was given by the respondents. The application was therefore heard in their absence. The review application was dismissed on the grounds of unreasonable delay, as the applicants had knowledge of the authorisations since 2012 but only launched the review in 2015, causing prejudice and frustration of the criminal proceedings. The attack on the rationality of the authorisations was speculative and unsupported by the evidence, and the applicants failed to supplement or amend their papers despite having access to the...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 464
Parties
Applicant: Pinky Elizabeth Bennets; Applicant: Godfrey Monyai; Applicant: Sabata Norman Bule; Applicant: Medupe Adam Tlou; Applicant: Lesiba Samule Mokautu; Applicant: Abram Maleka; Applicant: Henrik Khatutu Mashishi; Applicant: Moyahabo Frans Pheedi; Applicant: Weye Arthur Nqoko; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Pretoria; Respondent: Advocate Casper Kruger; Respondent: Russia Mogale; Respondent: Mandla Absalom Mabuza
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 June 2017
Case Number
25814/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Motion; Application for Review of Prosecutorial Authorisation
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Tlhapi VV
Legal Topics
Racketeering Authorisation, Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Review of Prosecutorial Decision, Abuse of Process, Unreasonable Delay
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Racketeering Authorisation Prevention of Organised Crime Act Review of Prosecutorial Decision Abuse of Process Unreasonable Delay

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pinky Elizabeth Bennets

Applicant

Godfrey Monyai

Applicant

Sabata Norman Bule

Applicant

Medupe Adam Tlou

Applicant

Lesiba Samule Mokautu

Applicant

Abram Maleka

Applicant

Henrik Khatutu Mashishi

Applicant

Moyahabo Frans Pheedi

Applicant

Weye Arthur Nqoko

Applicant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions; Pretoria

Respondent

Advocate Casper Kruger

Respondent

Russia Mogale

Respondent

Mandla Absalom Mabuza

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Motion; Application for Review of Prosecutorial Authorisation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the authorisations to prosecute the applicants for racketeering under POCA were rational and lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' withdrawal of the application complied with Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the review application was unduly delayed and constituted an abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' withdrawal of the application was invalid as it did not comply with Rule 41, since the matter had already been set down and no consent was given by the respondents. The application was therefore heard in their absence. The review application was dismissed on the grounds of unreasonable delay, as the applicants had knowledge of the authorisations since 2012 but only launched the review in 2015, causing prejudice and frustration of the criminal proceedings. The attack on the rationality of the authorisations was speculative and unsupported by the evidence, and the applicants failed to supplement or amend their papers despite having access to the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.