S v Mokhesi and 17 Others (45/2021) [2025] ZAFSHC 164 (3 June 2025)

S v Mokhesi and 17 Others (45/2021) [2025] ZAFSHC 164 (3 June 2025)

The court found that the extradition of Ms Cholota from the United States of America to South Africa was unlawful because the request for extradition was made by the National Prosecuting Authority and not by the Minister of Justice, as required by law and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Schultz. The involvement of the Department of International Relations and Co-ordination was deemed merely administrative and did not satisfy the requirement for executive authority. As a result, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to try Ms Cholota on the offences charged, and she was ordered to be released. The court did not need to decide the other grounds of the special plea, as the...

Citation
[2025] ZAFSHC 164
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Nthimotse Mokhesi; Respondent: Mahlomola John Matlakala; Respondent: Pheagane Edwin Sodi; Respondent: Blackhead Consulting (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Diamond Hill Trading 71 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: 605 Consulting Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sello Joseph Radebe; Respondent: Mastertrade 232 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Abel Kgotso Manyeki; Respondent: ORI Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Thabane Wiseman Zulu; Respondent: Sarah Matawana Mlamleli; Respondent: Elias Sekgobela Magashule; Respondent: Nozipho Belina Molikoe; Respondent: Thabiso Makepe; Respondent: Albertus Venter; Respondent: Nomalanga Moroadi Selina Cholota; Respondent: Margaret-Ann Diedricks
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 June 2025
Case Number
45/2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Trial / Trial Within a Trial; Special Plea on Jurisdiction
Outcome
Special plea upheld; court lacks jurisdiction to try Ms Cholota; she is released.
Judges
Loubser
Legal Topics
Extradition, Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts, Doctrine of Legality, International Law Compliance, Special Plea, Executive Authority in Extradition
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Extradition Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts Doctrine of Legality International Law Compliance Special Plea +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Nthimotse Mokhesi

Respondent

Mahlomola John Matlakala

Respondent

Pheagane Edwin Sodi

Respondent

Blackhead Consulting (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Diamond Hill Trading 71 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

605 Consulting Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Sello Joseph Radebe

Respondent

Mastertrade 232 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Abel Kgotso Manyeki

Respondent

ORI Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Thabane Wiseman Zulu

Respondent

Sarah Matawana Mlamleli

Respondent

Elias Sekgobela Magashule

Respondent

Nozipho Belina Molikoe

Respondent

Thabiso Makepe

Respondent

Albertus Venter

Respondent

Nomalanga Moroadi Selina Cholota

Respondent

Margaret-Ann Diedricks

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Trial / Trial Within a Trial; Special Plea on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extradition of Ms Cholota from the United States of America to South Africa was lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the South African criminal court has jurisdiction to try Ms Cholota on the offences charged, given the alleged unlawful extradition.
  3. 3 Whether the request for extradition was made by the proper executive authority as required by law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the extradition of Ms Cholota from the United States of America to South Africa was unlawful because the request for extradition was made by the National Prosecuting Authority and not by the Minister of Justice, as required by law and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Schultz. The involvement of the Department of International Relations and Co-ordination was deemed merely administrative and did not satisfy the requirement for executive authority. As a result, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to try Ms Cholota on the offences charged, and she was ordered to be released. The court did not need to decide the other grounds of the special plea, as the...

Court Disposition

Special plea upheld; court lacks jurisdiction to try Ms Cholota; she is released.

Orders

  • The extradition of Ms Cholota from the United States of America to the Republic of South Africa is declared to have been done unlawfully for want of a valid and lawful request for her extradition by the South African executive power.
  • Consequently, this Court does not have jurisdiction to try Ms Cholota on the offences she is charged with.