Moore and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions (628/2020) [2021] ZANCHC 68 (28 December 2021)

Moore and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions (628/2020) [2021] ZANCHC 68 (28 December 2021)

The court found that Mr Raadt's statement was admissible as evidence because he had personal knowledge of the transactions with Ms Moore, satisfying the requirements of section 34(1)(a)(i) of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act. The applicants did not genuinely dispute the material facts contained in the statement, and the disputes raised were not bona fide. The court further held that Mrs Moore was not entitled to sell the property, as she was no longer the executrix and the bequest was subject to a condition that was not fulfilled. The interpretation of the redistribution agreement and the last will and testament did not support the applicants' position. The court concluded that there...

Citation
[2021] ZANCHC 68
Parties
Applicant: Henrietta Cornelia Moore; Applicant: Christopher Ley Moore; Applicant: Robert Jorge Mendonca Velosa; Applicant: The CM Property Trust; Applicant: IProtect Trustees; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 December 2021
Case Number
628/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Forfeiture Order Under POCA
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mamosebo
Legal Topics
Asset Forfeiture, Hearsay Evidence, Leave to Appeal, Interpretation of Contracts
Civil Procedure Criminal Law Asset Forfeiture Hearsay Evidence Leave to Appeal Interpretation of Contracts

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henrietta Cornelia Moore

Applicant

Christopher Ley Moore

Applicant

Robert Jorge Mendonca Velosa

Applicant

The CM Property Trust

Applicant

IProtect Trustees

Applicant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Forfeiture Order Under POCA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of Mr Raadt was correctly admitted as evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the disputes of fact raised by the applicants were genuine.
  3. 3 Whether Mrs Moore had the right to sell the property without the involvement of the executrix.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Raadt's statement was admissible as evidence because he had personal knowledge of the transactions with Ms Moore, satisfying the requirements of section 34(1)(a)(i) of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act. The applicants did not genuinely dispute the material facts contained in the statement, and the disputes raised were not bona fide. The court further held that Mrs Moore was not entitled to sell the property, as she was no longer the executrix and the bequest was subject to a condition that was not fulfilled. The interpretation of the redistribution agreement and the last will and testament did not support the applicants' position. The court concluded that there...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.