Naidoo and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (CCT 112/10) [2011] ZACC 24; 2011 (12) BCLR 1239 (CC); 2012 (1) SACR 358 (CC) (10 August 2011)

Naidoo and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (CCT 112/10) [2011] ZACC 24; 2011 (12) BCLR 1239 (CC); 2012 (1) SACR 358 (CC) (10 August 2011)

Section 26(6) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act does not permit a court to authorise payment of a defendant's legal expenses from assets held by persons other than the defendant. The statutory scheme requires restraint orders to be individualised and applies only to property held by the person against whom the order is made. The mechanism for access to restrained assets for legal expenses is narrowly crafted and cannot be overridden by the general powers in section 26(1). The interpretation advanced by the applicants is not tenable in light of the statutory language and purpose, which is to prevent dissipation of criminal proceeds and ensure fair trial rights are balanced against...

Citation
[2011] ZACC 24
Parties
Applicant: Rajan Naidoo; Applicant: Dolly Naidoo; Applicant: Twoline Trading 87 (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Yamani Properties 1015 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Zakhele Sithole N.O.
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 August 2011
Case Number
CCT 112/10
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Cameron, Ngcobo, Moseneke, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Mogoeng, Mthiyane, Nkabinde, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Restraint Orders, Legal Expenses, Bill of Rights Limitation, Affected Gift, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Prevention of Organised Crime Act Restraint Orders Legal Expenses Bill of Rights Limitation Affected Gift Fair Trial Rights

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajan Naidoo

Applicant

Dolly Naidoo

Applicant

Twoline Trading 87 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Yamani Properties 1015 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Zakhele Sithole N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 26(6) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act permits a court to allow a defendant's legal expenses to be paid from assets held by persons other than the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the interpretation of section 26(6) given by the Supreme Court of Appeal unjustifiably limits the defendant's constitutional rights, including the right to a fair trial and property rights.
  3. 3 Whether the statutory scheme allows for access to restrained assets held by third parties for the legal expenses of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 26(6) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act does not permit a court to authorise payment of a defendant's legal expenses from assets held by persons other than the defendant. The statutory scheme requires restraint orders to be individualised and applies only to property held by the person against whom the order is made. The mechanism for access to restrained assets for legal expenses is narrowly crafted and cannot be overridden by the general powers in section 26(1). The interpretation advanced by the applicants is not tenable in light of the statutory language and purpose, which is to prevent dissipation of criminal proceeds and ensure fair trial rights are balanced against...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs is made in this Court.