Nkwane v Nkwane and Others (36700/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 153 (22 March 2018)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
36700/2016
Judge
Potterill
The court held that Rule 46(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court, as it stood prior to amendment, did not constitute an unconstitutional limitation of the rights protected by sections 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The process of sale in execution was found to be rational, procedurally fair, and subject to judicial oversight, which adequately protected the rights of judgment debtors. The evidence did not support the contention that a mandatory reserve price would yield higher sale prices or prevent arbitrary deprivation. The court found that the absence of a reserve price was not inherently unre…
Mormile v State President of the Republic of SA and Others (40330/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 175 (4 March 2016)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
40330/2014
Judge
Tokota
The applicant entered South Africa with a large sum of South African bank-notes without declaring them or obtaining Treasury exemption, in contravention of the Exchange Control Regulations. He was given an opportunity to make representations regarding the seized money, which were considered by the decision-maker before forfeiture. The applicant provided conflicting accounts of the origin of the money and failed to substantiate claims of undue hardship or procedural unfairness. The court found that the deprivation was not arbitrary, as it was effected under a law of general application with a…
Section 28 of LUPO vests ownership of all public streets and public places in the local authority upon confirmation of a subdivision, but only land required for the normal needs of the development vests without compensation. Excess land, beyond normal needs, vests in the local authority but attracts a statutory right to compensation. The structure plan is not a 'policy' for purposes of section 28 and does not exclude compensation. Vesting of excess land constitutes expropriation, not mere deprivation, and must be compensated in accordance with section 25(2) of the Constitution and the Expropr…
Prophet v National Director of Public Prosecutions (502/2004) [2005] ZASCA 94; [2006] 1 All SA 212 (SCA); 2006 (1) SA 38 (SCA); 2005 (2) SACR 670 (SCA) (29 September 2005)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
502/04
Judges
Mpati, Streicher, Mthiyane, Cloete, Ponnan
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's property was used as an instrumentality for manufacturing scheduled substances with the intention to produce methamphetamine. The property was adapted and equipped for illegal drug manufacturing, and its use was deliberate and planned. The court found a direct and substantial link between the property and the commission of the offence. The proportionality analysis, required at the second stage, did not reveal significant disproportionality between the forfeiture and the gravity of the offence. The appellant failed to provide sufficient mat…
