Venter v Minister van Polisie (13652/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 64 (3 February 2014)
- Citation
- [2014] ZAGPPHC 64
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- De Klerk
- Case number
- 13652/2013
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- De Klerk
- Case number
- 13652/2013
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The applicant failed to demonstrate that there were no pending criminal proceedings or that there was no reasonable likelihood of such proceedings being instituted in the foreseeable future. The respondent's explanation that a criminal case was still pending was accepted, and it was confirmed that the applicant had recently appeared in court. Accordingly, the requirements for the return of seized property under the Criminal Procedure Act were not met, and the application could not succeed.
Court disposition
Application dismissed; no costs order granted.
Orders
- The applicant's application is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Venter E
ApplicantMinister van Polisie
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Return of Seized Firearms and Ammunition
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant is entitled to the return of his seized firearms and ammunition.
- 02
Whether the respondent's refusal to return the firearms is justified by pending criminal proceedings.
- 03
Whether costs should be awarded against the respondent.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the prosecutor refused to place the matter on the roll on 25 June 2012, his bail was refunded, and he has not heard anything further regarding the case. He argues that there are no pending criminal proceedings and therefore his firearms and ammunition should be returned.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintains that the refusal to return the firearms is due to a pending criminal case against the applicant for unlawful possession of an excessive quantity of ammunition. The respondent asserts that the criminal proceedings are still ongoing, justifying continued retention of the seized items.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 20, Criminal Procedure Act
The state may seize any article connected to the commission or suspected commission of an offence, or which may afford evidence thereof.
- 02
Section 31(1)(a), Criminal Procedure Act
If no criminal proceedings are instituted in connection with a seized article, or if the article is not required for trial, it must be returned to the person from whom it was seized, provided that person may lawfully possess it.
- 03
Dookie v Minister of Law and Order and Others 1991 (2) SACR 153N at 156 c-f
The applicant must establish that there is no reasonable likelihood of criminal proceedings being instituted in connection with the article in the foreseeable future.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The applicant failed to demonstrate that there were no pending criminal proceedings or that there was no reasonable likelihood of such proceedings being instituted in the foreseeable future. The respondent's explanation that a criminal case was still pending was accepted, and it was confirmed that the applicant had recently appeared in court. Accordingly, the requirements for the return of seized property under the Criminal Procedure Act were not met, and the application could not succeed.
Obiter and limits
- The respondent unnecessarily delayed the matter for 18 months before the applicant appeared in court days before the hearing.
- No costs order is made despite the respondent's delay.
Court disposition
Application dismissed; no costs order granted.
- The applicant's application is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
IN DIE NOORD GAUTENG HOË HOF ,
PRETORIA
REPUBLIEK
VAN SUID AFRIKA
SAAK NOMMER: 13652/2013
DATUM: 3 FEBRUARIE 2014
In die saak tussen:
VENTER E.....................................................................................Applikant
en
DIE
MINISTER VAN POLISIE.....................................................Respondent
UITSPRAAK
DE
KLERK AJ
Die Applikant versoek onder andere dat die Respondent gelas word om die Applikant se vuurwapens aan hom terug te gee asook die koste van hierdie aansoek op prokureur en kliënt skaal te betaal.
Die Respondent opponeer die aansoek.
Die volgende relevante feite is gemeen saak naamlik:
Op 23 Junie 2012, het lede van die Suid- Afrikaanse Polisie, in die uitvoering van hulle pligte op die Applikant se drie gelisensieerde vuurwapens asook in sekere hoeveelheid ammunisie beslag gelệ.
As rede hiervoor is aangevoer dat die Applikant ʼn ontoelaatbare hoeveelheid ammunisie in sy besit gehad het.
Nieteenstaande verskeie versoeke daartoe weier die Respondent om die Applikant se vuurwapens aan hom terug te gee.
Die Applikant se weergawe:
Die Applikant beweer dat die aanklaer op 25 Junie 2012 geweier het om die saak op die rol te plaas, en dat sy borg aan hom terug betaal is.
Die Applikant beweer voorts dat hy “niks weer van die saak gehoor het nie.”
Die Respondent se weergawe:
Die Respondent beweer dat die rede vir sy weiering om die vuurwapens aan die Applikant terug te lewer is dat ʼn Kriminele saak (vir die onwettige besit van ʼn ontoelaatbare hoeveelheid ammunisie), teen die Applikant hangende is.
Regsposisie:
Artikel 20 van die Strafproseswet bepaal as volg: “The state may, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, seize anything (in this chapter referred to as articles) –
(a) Which is connected in or is on reasonable grounds believed to be connected in the commission or suspected commission of an offence.
(b) Which may afford evidence of the commission or suspected commission of an offence.”
Artikel 31 (1) (a) van die Strafproseswet bepaal:
“If no criminal proceedings are instituted in connection with any article referred to in Section 30 (c) or if it appears that such article is not required at the trial for purposes of evidence or for purposes of an order of court the article shall be returned to the person from whom it was seized, if such person may lawfully possess such article.”
In die saak van Dookie v Minister of Law and Order and Others 1991 (2) SACR 153N op 156 c-f is as volg in hierdie verband beslis:
“He also agreed (once again, correctly, in my view) that the requirement would not be satisfied merely by proof that no proceedings were pending at the time of the institution of the application for return of the article, but that it was necessary for the applicant to establish that there was no reasonable likelihood of criminal proceedings being instituted in connection with the article in the foreseeable future”
Tydens die aanhoor van die aansoek is die Hof van die balie af meegedeel dat die Applikant intussen (gedurende Januarie 2014) in die Hof verskyn het.
Gevolgtrekking
Die Applikant se aansoek is daarop gebasseer dat die aanklaer geweier het om te vervolg en dat hy sedert dien niks weer van die saak gehoor het nie.
Die Applikant het geen ander gronde vir die teruggawe van sy vuurwapens aangevoer nie. In die lig van voormelde kan die Applikant se aansoek nie slaag nie.
Wat die aspek van koste aanbetref is ek van mening dat die Respondent onnodiglik lank [18 maande]gesloer het en het die Applikant letterlik dae voor die aanhoor van hierdie aansoek eers weer in die hof verskyn.
Die bevel wat die Hof verleen is as volg:
1. Die Applikant se aansoek word van die hand gewys.
2. Geen kostebevel word verleen nie.
Gedoen te ___op die __dag van____2014
Regter De Klerk AJ
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.