Dhoda and Others v Minister of Police and Others (2025/006880) [2025] ZAGPJHC 57 (30 January 2025)

Dhoda and Others v Minister of Police and Others (2025/006880) [2025] ZAGPJHC 57 (30 January 2025)

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.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 57
Parties
Applicant: Rooksana Dhoda; Applicant: Mohamed Alli Dawood; Applicant: Hafil Dawood; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (The Hawks); Respondent: Warrant Officer Amos Bashiele Mahlangu; Respondent: The Magistrate: Randburg; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 January 2025
Case Number
2025/006880
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief
Outcome
Application struck off the roll with costs reserved.
Judges
GC Wright
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure, Urgency, Unlawful Search, Return of Property
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Search and Seizure Urgency Unlawful Search Return of Property

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rooksana Dhoda

Applicant

Mohamed Alli Dawood

Applicant

Hafil Dawood

Applicant

Minister of Police

Respondent

Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (The Hawks)

Respondent

Warrant Officer Amos Bashiele Mahlangu

Respondent

The Magistrate: Randburg

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants established urgency justifying the hearing of the matter on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the search and seizure conducted on 16 January 2025 was unlawful.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to the immediate return of seized items and destruction of information obtained.

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.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll with costs reserved.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll.
  • Costs are reserved.