Buys and Others v Minister of Police and Another (2339/2016) [2018] ZANCHC 37 (29 June 2018)

Buys and Others v Minister of Police and Another (2339/2016) [2018] ZANCHC 37 (29 June 2018)

The court held that the withdrawal of the criminal charges against the appellants, even if intended as provisional, brought the criminal proceedings to an end. At the time the application for the return of property was considered, there were no pending criminal proceedings. The police failed to provide sufficient evidence that the seized property was required for trial purposes or for an order of court. The general and vague allegations regarding the source of funds for the property purchases were insufficient to justify continued detention of the property. The Director of Public Prosecutions had a direct and substantial interest and should have been joined, but ultimately abided by the...

Citation
[2018] ZANCHC 37
Parties
Appellant: Charles Buys; Appellant: Andries Buys; Appellant: Conrad Buys; Appellant: Gordon Buys; Appellant: Louis Mossel; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: Head of Hawks, SA Police Service
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2018
Case Number
2339/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Return of Seized Property
Outcome
Appeal upheld; application for return of property granted; costs awarded as specified.
Judges
C J Olivier, C C Williams, M Mamosebo
Legal Topics
Criminal Procedure Act Section 31, Return of Seized Property, Burden of Proof, Joinder of Parties, Withdrawal of Criminal Charges
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Criminal Procedure Act Section 31 Return of Seized Property Burden of Proof Joinder of Parties Withdrawal of Criminal Charges

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Buys

Appellant

Andries Buys

Appellant

Conrad Buys

Appellant

Gordon Buys

Appellant

Louis Mossel

Appellant

Minister of Police

Respondent

Head of Hawks, SA Police Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Return of Seized Property

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are entitled to the return of property seized by the police after withdrawal of criminal charges.
  2. 2 Whether the Director of Public Prosecutions should have been joined as a party to the proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the police discharged the burden of proving that the seized property was required for trial purposes.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the withdrawal of the criminal charges against the appellants, even if intended as provisional, brought the criminal proceedings to an end. At the time the application for the return of property was considered, there were no pending criminal proceedings. The police failed to provide sufficient evidence that the seized property was required for trial purposes or for an order of court. The general and vague allegations regarding the source of funds for the property purchases were insufficient to justify continued detention of the property. The Director of Public Prosecutions had a direct and substantial interest and should have been joined, but ultimately abided by the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; application for return of property granted; costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds and the orders of the court a quo dismissing the application and directing each party to pay their own costs are set aside.
  • The relief sought in paragraph 1 of the notice of motion dated 27 October 2016 is granted.