Buys and Another v Minister of Police and Another (2339/2016) [2017] ZANCHC 45 (21 April 2017)

Buys and Another v Minister of Police and Another (2339/2016) [2017] ZANCHC 45 (21 April 2017)

The court found that the Minister had established sufficient objective facts to constitute a reasonable belief that the seized articles were linked to the commission of theft and money laundering. The applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving that no criminal proceedings were pending or likely to be instituted, and their reliance on section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Act was misplaced as proceedings had already been instituted. The Minister's failure to fully address certain allegations and the applicants' procedural irregularities resulted in no cost order for either party. The application for the return of the seized articles was dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ZANCHC 45
Parties
Applicant: Charles Buys; Applicant: Andries Buys; Applicant: Conrad Buys; Applicant: Gordon Buys; Applicant: Louis Mossel; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: Head of Hawks, SA Police Service
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 April 2017
Case Number
2339/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Motion for Return of Seized Articles
Outcome
Application dismissed. Each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
Snyders
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure, Criminal Procedure Act, Return of Seized Property, Onus of Proof
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Search and Seizure Criminal Procedure Act Return of Seized Property Onus of Proof

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Buys

Applicant

Andries Buys

Applicant

Conrad Buys

Applicant

Gordon Buys

Applicant

Louis Mossel

Applicant

Minister of Police

Respondent

Head of Hawks, SA Police Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Motion for Return of Seized Articles

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seizure of the applicants' property by the Minister of Police was lawful under sections 20, 21, and 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to the return of the seized articles under section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Minister discharged the onus of proving reasonable grounds for the seizure.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Minister had established sufficient objective facts to constitute a reasonable belief that the seized articles were linked to the commission of theft and money laundering. The applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving that no criminal proceedings were pending or likely to be instituted, and their reliance on section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Act was misplaced as proceedings had already been instituted. The Minister's failure to fully address certain allegations and the applicants' procedural irregularities resulted in no cost order for either party. The application for the return of the seized articles was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay their own costs.