Special Investigating Unit (SIU) v Mazibuko and Others (GP10/2021) [2022] ZAST 3 (17 January 2022)

Special Investigating Unit (SIU) v Mazibuko and Others (GP10/2021) [2022] ZAST 3 (17 January 2022)

The Tribunal found no merit in the respondents' complaints regarding jurisdiction and factual findings. The SIU Act does not require a criminal conviction for civil forfeiture; unlawful conduct is sufficient. Mr Mazibuko was found to be a de facto director or advisor of the third respondent, and CLM's duty to disclose interests was ongoing and independent of the Proclamation. The respondents failed to disclose material documents and did not meet their evidentiary burden. The Tribunal's findings on breach of duty and unlawful conduct were upheld, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2022] ZAST 3
Parties
Applicant: Special Investigating Unit (SIU); Respondent: Petrus Shaka Mazibuko; Respondent: Shadrak Mazibuko; Respondent: Thephunokheja Projects (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commodity Logistix Managers Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mbulelo Clive Bhekuyise Khoza; Respondent: Philip Bongani Sibanyoni; Respondent: Thembathlo (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: First Rand Bank Limited
Court
Special Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 January 2022
Case Number
GP10/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Forfeiture Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
T. Siwendu
Legal Topics
Civil Forfeiture, Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act, Breach of Duty, Procurement Irregularities
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Civil Forfeiture Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act Breach of Duty Procurement Irregularities

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Special Investigating Unit (SIU)

Applicant

Petrus Shaka Mazibuko

Respondent

Shadrak Mazibuko

Respondent

Thephunokheja Projects (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Commodity Logistix Managers Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Mbulelo Clive Bhekuyise Khoza

Respondent

Philip Bongani Sibanyoni

Respondent

Thembathlo (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

First Rand Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Forfeiture Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in granting the final forfeiture order and judgment.
  2. 2 Whether a declaration of a criminal offence is a prerequisite for civil forfeiture under the SIU Act.
  3. 3 Whether Mr Mazibuko was a de facto director or advisor of the third respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found no merit in the respondents' complaints regarding jurisdiction and factual findings. The SIU Act does not require a criminal conviction for civil forfeiture; unlawful conduct is sufficient. Mr Mazibuko was found to be a de facto director or advisor of the third respondent, and CLM's duty to disclose interests was ongoing and independent of the Proclamation. The respondents failed to disclose material documents and did not meet their evidentiary burden. The Tribunal's findings on breach of duty and unlawful conduct were upheld, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.