National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mohapi and Others (1754/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 249 (30 September 2021)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mohapi and Others (1754/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 249 (30 September 2021)

The court found that the applicant had established reasonable grounds for believing that the defendants may be convicted of the offences charged and that a confiscation order may be made against them. The evidence showed that fraudulent documents were submitted in support of the bid, and corrupt payments were made to the third defendant. The first and second defendants acknowledged receipt of R249 million, but sought to limit the restraint order to their agent's fee. The court held that the appropriate forum to determine the exact benefit for confiscation purposes is the court seized with the confiscation enquiry after conviction. The counter application to amend the restraint order was...

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 249
Parties
Applicant: National Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: Malikomo Lenah Mohapi; Defendant: Superior Quality Trading; Defendant: Seipati Sylvia Dlhamini; Respondent: Mokhele Goodwill Mohapi
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2021
Case Number
1754/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Confirmation of Provisional Restraint Order and Counter Application
Outcome
The provisional restraint orders against the defendants are confirmed; the order against the respondent is discharged; the counter application is dismissed; condonation for late filing is granted; no costs order is made.
Judges
Molitsoane
Legal Topics
Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Restraint Order, Confiscation Order, Fraudulent Tender, Unlawful Enrichment
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Prevention of Organised Crime Act Restraint Order Confiscation Order Fraudulent Tender Unlawful Enrichment

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Applicant

Malikomo Lenah Mohapi

Defendant

Superior Quality Trading

Defendant

Seipati Sylvia Dlhamini

Defendant

Mokhele Goodwill Mohapi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Confirmation of Provisional Restraint Order and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the provisional restraint orders granted under POCA should be confirmed against the defendants.
  2. 2 Whether the provisional restraint order against the respondent should be discharged.
  3. 3 Whether the counter application to amend the restraint order should succeed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established reasonable grounds for believing that the defendants may be convicted of the offences charged and that a confiscation order may be made against them. The evidence showed that fraudulent documents were submitted in support of the bid, and corrupt payments were made to the third defendant. The first and second defendants acknowledged receipt of R249 million, but sought to limit the restraint order to their agent's fee. The court held that the appropriate forum to determine the exact benefit for confiscation purposes is the court seized with the confiscation enquiry after conviction. The counter application to amend the restraint order was...

Court Disposition

The provisional restraint orders against the defendants are confirmed; the order against the respondent is discharged; the counter application is dismissed; condonation for late filing is granted; no costs order is made.

Orders

  • The first and second defendants are granted condonation for the late filing of their answering affidavit.
  • The counter application is dismissed.