Makokwe and Others v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (38636/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 76 (16 August 2006)

Makokwe and Others v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (38636/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 76 (16 August 2006)

The court found that the applicants were justified in launching the urgent application due to the respondents' unreasonable refusal to provide an undertaking not to peruse the seized documents. The respondents did not dispute the applicants' version or file answering affidavits, effectively conceding the merits. The applicants' constitutional rights to privacy and dignity were infringed by the unlawful search and seizure. The balance of convenience favoured the applicants, and their apprehension of harm was reasonable. The respondents' conduct necessitated the urgent application, and the applicants would have succeeded had the matter been finalised. Accordingly, the applicants are...

Citation
[2006] ZAGPHC 76
Parties
Applicant: Makokwe, Gopalong; Applicant: Moseneke, Tiego; Applicant: New Platinum Corporation (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Encha Group Ltd; Applicant: Encha Capital (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Safety and Security; Respondent: Commanding Officer of the Commercial Branch, High-Profile Investigations (Specialised Commercial Crimes Unit) Johannesburg; Respondent: Velloen, Jacq; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions, represented by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (Specialised Commercial Crimes Unit) Johannesburg
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 August 2006
Case Number
38636/05
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Settlement of Merits
Outcome
Costs awarded in favour of the applicants.
Judges
Mokgoatlheng
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure, Interim Interdict, Costs Award, Constitutional Right to Privacy
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Search and Seizure Interim Interdict Costs Award Constitutional Right to Privacy

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Makokwe, Gopalong

Applicant

Moseneke, Tiego

Applicant

New Platinum Corporation (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Encha Group Ltd

Applicant

Encha Capital (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Minister of Safety and Security

Respondent

Commanding Officer of the Commercial Branch, High-Profile Investigations (Specialised Commercial Crimes Unit) Johannesburg

Respondent

Velloen, Jacq

Respondent

National Director of Public Prosecutions, represented by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (Specialised Commercial Crimes Unit) Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Settlement of Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were entitled to launch urgent proceedings for an interdict regarding seized documents.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants would have succeeded had the application been finalised.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to a costs order against the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were justified in launching the urgent application due to the respondents' unreasonable refusal to provide an undertaking not to peruse the seized documents. The respondents did not dispute the applicants' version or file answering affidavits, effectively conceding the merits. The applicants' constitutional rights to privacy and dignity were infringed by the unlawful search and seizure. The balance of convenience favoured the applicants, and their apprehension of harm was reasonable. The respondents' conduct necessitated the urgent application, and the applicants would have succeeded had the matter been finalised. Accordingly, the applicants are...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded in favour of the applicants.

Orders

  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the urgent application, including the costs of arguing the reserved costs.