Van Jaarsveld v Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit (230/05) [2006] ZANCHC 10 (24 February 2006)

Van Jaarsveld v Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit (230/05) [2006] ZANCHC 10 (24 February 2006)

The court held that the only statutory requirement for the return of seized property under section 31(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the person from whom it was seized may lawfully possess it, not that he must be the owner. The respondent failed to show that the applicant's possession would be unlawful under criminal law. The dispute between the applicant and Van Deventer is contractual and does not render the applicant's possession unlawful. The police acted outside the scope of the Act by handing the sheep to Van Deventer without the applicant's consent. Van Deventer was merely a temporary custodian and did not have a direct and substantial interest in the proceedings....

Citation
[2006] ZANCHC 10
Parties
Applicant: Hendrik Hermanus Jacobus van Jaarsveld; Respondent: Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 February 2006
Case Number
230/05
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; point in limine dismissed.
Judges
C.C Williams
Legal Topics
Return of Property, Possession Dispute, Criminal Procedure Act Section 31, Ownership Vs Possession
Civil Procedure Land and Property Return of Property Possession Dispute Criminal Procedure Act Section 31 Ownership Vs Possession

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

Parties

Hendrik Hermanus Jacobus van Jaarsveld

Applicant

Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to the return of the sheep seized by the police under a warrant.
  2. 2 Whether the police acted lawfully in handing the sheep to Van Deventer for safekeeping.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's possession of the sheep would be unlawful under criminal law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the only statutory requirement for the return of seized property under section 31(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the person from whom it was seized may lawfully possess it, not that he must be the owner. The respondent failed to show that the applicant's possession would be unlawful under criminal law. The dispute between the applicant and Van Deventer is contractual and does not render the applicant's possession unlawful. The police acted outside the scope of the Act by handing the sheep to Van Deventer without the applicant's consent. Van Deventer was merely a temporary custodian and did not have a direct and substantial interest in the proceedings....

Court Disposition

Application granted; point in limine dismissed.

Orders

  • The point in limine is dismissed.
  • An order is granted in terms of prayers 1 and 2 of the Notice of Motion, namely that the respondent is directed to return the 63 Dohne ewes and 131 Dohne merino lambs to the applicant and to pay the costs of the application.