Johnson and Johnson v Setshogoe N.O and Others (34277/2009) [2010] ZAGPPHC 125 (29 September 2010)

Johnson and Johnson v Setshogoe N.O and Others (34277/2009) [2010] ZAGPPHC 125 (29 September 2010)

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a proper case for the relief sought. The inventory of seized goods was vague, incomplete, and insufficient to identify the items for return. The applicant had alternative remedies available through civil proceedings and discovery, and the matter was not urgent. The magistrate's decision to return the goods was not shown to be reviewable on the papers before the court. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs, including reserved costs from the earlier postponement.

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 125
Parties
Applicant: Johnson & Johnson; Respondent: Magistrate N Setshogoe NO; Respondent: Surika Lourens NO; Respondent: Rowan Tree 1123CC; Respondent: Elizabeth Margaret Venter; Respondent: Coenraad Hendrik Swart; Respondent: The Minister of Safety and Security; Respondent: Mister Mover CC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2010
Case Number
34277/2009
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including reserved costs of 23 July 2009.
Judges
PZ Ebersohn
Legal Topics
Counterfeit Goods Act, Search and Seizure, Inventory Management, Review of Magistrate Decision
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Counterfeit Goods Act Search and Seizure Inventory Management Review of Magistrate Decision

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johnson & Johnson

Applicant

Magistrate N Setshogoe NO

Respondent

Surika Lourens NO

Respondent

Rowan Tree 1123CC

Respondent

Elizabeth Margaret Venter

Respondent

Coenraad Hendrik Swart

Respondent

The Minister of Safety and Security

Respondent

Mister Mover CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant made out a proper case for review and setting aside of the magistrate's decision to return seized goods.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to relief for the return of items pending final determination of review proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the inventory of seized goods was sufficient to identify the items for return.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a proper case for the relief sought. The inventory of seized goods was vague, incomplete, and insufficient to identify the items for return. The applicant had alternative remedies available through civil proceedings and discovery, and the matter was not urgent. The magistrate's decision to return the goods was not shown to be reviewable on the papers before the court. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs, including reserved costs from the earlier postponement.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including reserved costs of 23 July 2009.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the reserved costs of 23 July 2009.