Kapeel Bechan and Another v SARS Customs Investigations Unit and Others (19626/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 525 (25 July 2022)

Kapeel Bechan and Another v SARS Customs Investigations Unit and Others (19626/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 525 (25 July 2022)

The court found that the applicants failed to advance the constitutional arguments during the main hearing and confined their case to the mandament van spolie. The evidence presented by SARS was not hearsay, as the deponent confirmed personal presence during the execution of the warrant, and the applicants did not effectively dispute this. The applicants did not demonstrate any reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion, nor did they show any compelling reason for leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants, including the costs of two counsel and the costs of the previous...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 525
Parties
Applicant: Kapeel Bechan; Applicant: Bechan Consulting (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: SARS Customs Investigations Unit; Respondent: SARS Tactical Investigations Unit; Respondent: Tanya Potgieter – SARS Illicit Economy Unit; Respondent: Lindiwe Shibindi – Tactical Investigations Unit; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: Hawks Special Investigation Unit
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 July 2022
Case Number
19626/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Mandament Van Spolie Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
A Millar
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Search and Seizure, Constitutional Rights, Leave to Appeal, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Mandament Van Spolie Search and Seizure Constitutional Rights Leave to Appeal Costs Orders

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

Kapeel Bechan

Applicant

Bechan Consulting (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

SARS Customs Investigations Unit

Respondent

SARS Tactical Investigations Unit

Respondent

Tanya Potgieter – SARS Illicit Economy Unit

Respondent

Lindiwe Shibindi – Tactical Investigations Unit

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

Hawks Special Investigation Unit

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Mandament Van Spolie Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the dismissal of their mandament van spolie application.
  2. 2 Whether the execution of the warrant and seizure of property violated constitutional rights.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence relied upon by SARS was hearsay and improperly admitted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to advance the constitutional arguments during the main hearing and confined their case to the mandament van spolie. The evidence presented by SARS was not hearsay, as the deponent confirmed personal presence during the execution of the warrant, and the applicants did not effectively dispute this. The applicants did not demonstrate any reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion, nor did they show any compelling reason for leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicants, including the costs of two counsel and the costs of the previous...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The First and Second Applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally, including the costs of two counsel and the costs of 30 May 2022.