Moyo v National Director of Public Prosecutions (38893/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 639 (18 November 2019)

Moyo v National Director of Public Prosecutions (38893/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 639 (18 November 2019)

The court found that the appellant's application for variation of the forfeiture order was considered under section 53(4) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act and Uniform Rule 42(1), both of which require that the order sought to be varied must have been granted in default. The court held that the forfeiture order was not granted by default per se and that the requirements for variation were not met. However, the appellant argued that the court should have exercised its inherent jurisdiction to vary the order on constitutional grounds, specifically section 25(1), which prohibits arbitrary deprivation of property. The court acknowledged that it did not consider whether the forfeiture...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 639
Parties
Appellant: Thabani Archibald Moyo; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 2019
Case Number
38893/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order Delivered on 15 March 2019
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Full Court of the Division against the whole of the judgment and order delivered on 15 March 2019.
Judges
E.M. Kubushi
Legal Topics
Forfeiture Order, Variation of Court Order, Arbitrary Deprivation of Property, Section 25 Constitution, Inherent Jurisdiction, Prevention of Organised Crime Act
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Forfeiture Order Variation of Court Order Arbitrary Deprivation of Property Section 25 Constitution Inherent Jurisdiction Prevention of Organised Crime Act

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabani Archibald Moyo

Appellant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order Delivered on 15 March 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the forfeiture order granted in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act may be varied on the grounds of section 25(1) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was deprived of property arbitrarily and without procedural fairness.
  3. 3 Whether the inherent jurisdiction of the court allows variation of the forfeiture order outside the statutory framework.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's application for variation of the forfeiture order was considered under section 53(4) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act and Uniform Rule 42(1), both of which require that the order sought to be varied must have been granted in default. The court held that the forfeiture order was not granted by default per se and that the requirements for variation were not met. However, the appellant argued that the court should have exercised its inherent jurisdiction to vary the order on constitutional grounds, specifically section 25(1), which prohibits arbitrary deprivation of property. The court acknowledged that it did not consider whether the forfeiture...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Full Court of the Division against the whole of the judgment and order delivered on 15 March 2019.

Orders

  • The appellant is granted leave to appeal to the Full Court of this Division against the whole of the judgment and order delivered on 15 March 2019.
  • Costs are costs in the appeal.