Dhoda and Others v Minister of Police and Others (2025/006880) [2025] ZAGPJHC 57 (30 January 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPJHC 57
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 2025/006880
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 2025/006880
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency. Their submissions regarding the need for the return of items were vague, and they did not demonstrate that they could not obtain substantial redress at a later stage. There was no evidence that replacement items could not be obtained or that their information was not backed up. Accordingly, the application was struck off the roll with costs reserved.
Court disposition
Application struck off the roll with costs reserved.
Orders
- The application is struck off the roll.
- Costs are reserved.
02
Material facts
Parties
Rooksana Dhoda
Applicant Counsel: Adv Deon M PoolMohamed Alli Dawood
Applicant Counsel: Adv Deon M PoolHafil Dawood
Applicant Counsel: Adv Deon M PoolMinister of Police
Respondent Counsel: Adv T MatswikiDirectorate for Priority Crime Investigation (The Hawks)
Respondent Counsel: Adv T MatswikiWarrant Officer Amos Bashiele Mahlangu
Respondent Counsel: Adv T MatswikiThe Magistrate: Randburg
RespondentMinister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicants established urgency justifying the hearing of the matter on an urgent basis.
- 02
Whether the search and seizure conducted on 16 January 2025 was unlawful.
- 03
Whether the applicants are entitled to the immediate return of seized items and destruction of information obtained.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants allege that the search and seizure conducted on 16 January 2025 was unlawful and seek the urgent return of laptops, cell phones, and sim cards. They claim the items are necessary for their businesses and request that any information obtained be destroyed. They do not provide details on whether they have been able to replace the items or if their information was backed up.
- Respondent
- The first to third respondents oppose the application and have filed an answering affidavit. The fourth and fifth respondents, the Magistrate and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, abide by the court's decision.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court
Urgency must be established with clear facts showing that the applicant cannot obtain substantial redress at a later hearing.
- 02
Minister of Law and Order v Matshoba 1987 (1) SA 616 (A)
A party seeking the return of seized property must demonstrate the unlawfulness of the search and seizure and the necessity for immediate relief.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency. Their submissions regarding the need for the return of items were vague, and they did not demonstrate that they could not obtain substantial redress at a later stage. There was no evidence that replacement items could not be obtained or that their information was not backed up. Accordingly, the application was struck off the roll with costs reserved.
Obiter and limits
- Applicants should provide specific facts to support claims of urgency, especially when seeking extraordinary relief.
- The mere assertion of business inconvenience does not suffice to establish urgency in the absence of supporting evidence.
Court disposition
Application struck off the roll with costs reserved.
- The application is struck off the roll.
- Costs are reserved.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2025/006880
1. Reportable: No
2. Of interest to other judges: No
3. Revised
30 January 2025
ROOKSANA
DHODA
First Applicant
MOHAMED ALLI
DAWOOD
Second Applicant
HAFIL
DAWOOD
Third Applicant
and
MINISTER OF
POLICE
First Respondent
DIRECTORATE FOR
PRIORITY CRIME
Second Respondent
INVESTIGATION (“THE HAWKS”)
WARRANT OFFICER AMOS BASHIELE MAHLANGU Third Respondent
THE MAGISTRATE:
RANDBURG
Fourth Respondent
MAGISTRATES COURT
MINISTER OF JUSTICE
AND CONSTITUTIONAL Fifth Respondent
DEVELOPMENT
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
1. The applicants seek urgently the return of certain items like laptops, cell phones and sim cards. They say that they were, on 16 January 2025, the subject of an unlawful raid, search and seizure. They say, somewhat vaguely, that they need their items urgently to conduct their businesses. They seek that information allegedly obtained illegally be destroyed. Related relief is sought.
2. The first applicant runs a catering operation and the second applicant sells cars and is selling a property.
3. The applicants don’t say that they have not been able to obtain other replacement items. They do not say that their information was not backed up.
4. The 1st to 3rd respondents, namely the Minister of Police, The Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation and Warrant Officer Mahlangu oppose.
5. They have delivered an answering affidavit.
6. The 4th and 5th respondents, namely the Magistrate and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development abide.
7. In my view, no case for urgency is made out.
ORDER
1. Struck off, with costs reserved.
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD : 30 January 2025
DELIVERED : 30 January 2025
APPEARANCES:
Applicants Adv Deon M Pool
082 515 5725
deon@lawconsult.co.za
Instructed byHajibey BMS Inc
Shaheen@jlaw.co.za
011 431 1970
Respondents Adv T Matswiki
Instructed by State Attorney
Mr C Jossie
Cjossie@justice.gov.za
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.