Scholtz v NDPP (69/2018) [2019] ZASCA 136 (1 October 2019)

Scholtz v NDPP (69/2018) [2019] ZASCA 136 (1 October 2019)

The court found that the explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal was inadequate and did not constitute a proper justification for condonation. The alleged unavailability of the judge was not a prerequisite for filing the application, and the applicants' attorneys failed to supervise the process adequately. Furthermore, the interpretation of the settlement agreement advanced by the applicants was inconsistent with its clear wording, which provided for joint and several liability and aggregate amounts to be confiscated if the state proved that any of the entities received proceeds of crime or benefited from increased property values. The court concluded that...

Citation
[2019] ZASCA 136
Parties
Appellant: Alfeus Christo Scholtz; Appellant: Trifecta Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Trifecta Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Trifecta Trading 434 Property 4 (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Trifecta Trading 434 Property 5 (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Trifecta Trading 434 Property 7 (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Trifecta Trading 434 Property 11 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 October 2019
Case Number
69/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Appeal Against Confiscation Order
Outcome
Application for condonation of the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed; application for leave to appeal is struck off from the roll.
Judges
Petse, Tshiqi, Saldulker, Swain, Molemela
Legal Topics
Confiscation Order, Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Condonation, Late Filing, Prospects of Success
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Confiscation Order Prevention of Organised Crime Act Condonation Late Filing Prospects of Success

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfeus Christo Scholtz

Appellant

Trifecta Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Trifecta Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Trifecta Trading 434 Property 4 (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Trifecta Trading 434 Property 5 (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Trifecta Trading 434 Property 7 (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Trifecta Trading 434 Property 11 (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Appeal Against Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal against the confiscation order.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the confiscation order.
  3. 3 Whether the settlement agreement was correctly interpreted by the court a quo regarding joint and several liability and the amounts to be confiscated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal was inadequate and did not constitute a proper justification for condonation. The alleged unavailability of the judge was not a prerequisite for filing the application, and the applicants' attorneys failed to supervise the process adequately. Furthermore, the interpretation of the settlement agreement advanced by the applicants was inconsistent with its clear wording, which provided for joint and several liability and aggregate amounts to be confiscated if the state proved that any of the entities received proceeds of crime or benefited from increased property values. The court concluded that...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation of the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed; application for leave to appeal is struck off from the roll.

Orders

  • The application for condonation of the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The application for leave to appeal is struck off from the roll.