South Africa Case Law

Jordaan and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (5833/2023; 5325/2023)

Jordaan and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (5833/2023; 5325/2023) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 52 (11 June 2025)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

5833/2023; 5325/2023

Judge

Moleleki

The High Court dismissed an application to release restrained funds for legal and living expenses under POCA, finding inadequate disclosure and unmet jurisdictional requirements.

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Asset Forfeiture
• Full Disclosure
• Curatorship
• Living Expenses
• Legal Expenses

Cassim N.O v Ndlovu and Others (GP19/2021)

Cassim N.O v Ndlovu and Others (GP19/2021) [2024] ZAST 8 (5 November 2024)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP19/2021

Judge

L.T. Modiba

The Special Tribunal held Mr Ndlovu in contempt for failing to comply with a forfeiture order, and dismissed rescission applications by Akanni and Zaisan.

• Contempt Of Court
• Curatorship
• Asset Forfeiture
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Fronting Companies
• Procurement Irregularities

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Dynlog Rental (Pty) Ltd t/a Dynamic Truck Rental and Others (A63/2023)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Dynlog Rental (Pty) Ltd t/a Dynamic Truck Rental and Others (A63/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 177 (6 June 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A63/2023

Judges

CJ Musi, Reinders, Molitsoane

Appeal over a POCA restraint order in a tax-evasion prosecution partly succeeded; the order was confirmed only against the company, not its directors.

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Restraint Order
• Tax Evasion
• Asset Forfeiture
• Statutory Offences
• Separate Legal Personality

Knoop NO and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions (657/2022 ; 694/2022)

Knoop NO and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions (657/2022 ; 694/2022) [2023] ZASCA 141; [2024] 1 All SA 50 (SCA); 2024 (1) SACR 121 (SCA) (30 October 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

657/2022 ; 694/2022

Judges

Mocumie, Meyer, Matojane, Kathree-Setiloane, Keightley

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that preservation of property orders granted under section 38 of POCA are not appealable. The legislative scheme of Chapter 6 of POCA is designed to insulate such orders from challenge until the forfeiture stage, where interested parties have the opportunity to oppose and defend their interests. The preservation order is interim, does not definitively determine rights, and does not dispose of substantial relief claimed in the main proceedings. The Zweni test for appealability is not satisfied. Previous decisions (Phillips and Singh) regarding restraint orders…

Source excerpt

• Preservation Of Property Order
• Business Rescue
• Asset Forfeiture
• Appealability Of Interim Orders
• Conflict Between Poca And Companies Act

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mkhize and Another (7419/2021P)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mkhize and Another (7419/2021P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 76 (10 August 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

7419/2021P

Judge

Nicholson AJ

The High Court allowed the NDPP to file a further affidavit in a POCA forfeiture matter, finding the evidence was material, non-prejudicial, and in the interests of justice.

• Interlocutory Relief
• Filing Of Further Affidavit
• Asset Forfeiture
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Judicial Discretion
• Interlocutory-relief

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Khoza and Another (1406/2022)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Khoza and Another (1406/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 292 (4 November 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1406/2022

Judge

JP Daffue

The court found that the NDPP had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the Scania truck, tanker trailer, and Toyota Land Cruiser were used as instruments in the commission of theft of diesel, a schedule 1 offence under POCA. The respondents' version was rejected as implausible, unsubstantiated, and contradicted by objective evidence, including statements from their own employees. The court held that the preservation order was properly obtained and that the forfeiture application was brought timeously. In conducting the proportionality analysis, the court considered the value of th…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Asset Forfeiture
• Instrumentality Of Crime
• Proportionality Analysis
• Preservation Order

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Bacela and Another (FB09/2020)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Bacela and Another (FB09/2020) [2022] ZANWHC 52 (28 October 2022)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

FB09/2020

Judges

Hendrcks, Djaje, Mtembu

The majority held that section 48(3) of POCA is peremptory and requires service of the forfeiture application by the Sheriff, not merely on attorneys of record. The intention of the legislature, as evidenced by the use of 'shall', is to ensure that the notice of the forfeiture application comes directly to the attention of the respondent, given the draconian nature of forfeiture orders. The court found no ambiguity in the statutory language and held that non-compliance with section 48(3) cannot be condoned by the court's inherent discretion, as this would contravene an express provision of an…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Asset Forfeiture
• Service Of Process
• Statutory Interpretation

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Tariomix (Pty) Limited and Others (2021/14331)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Tariomix (Pty) Limited and Others (2021/14331) [2022] ZAGPPHC 634 (22 August 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2021/14331

Judge

Mokose

The High Court reconsidered and set aside a POCA preservation order against respondents’ bank accounts, finding the NDPP had not shown reasonable grounds on admissible evidence.

• Asset Forfeiture
• Preservation Order
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Burden Of Proof
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Asset-forfeiture

Eastern Cape Transport Tertiary Co-Operative and Others v The National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (2284/2021)

Eastern Cape Transport Tertiary Co-Operative and Others v The National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (2284/2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 25 (31 May 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

2284/2021

Judge

G.H. Bloem

The High Court dismissed an application to reconsider ex parte preservation orders over bank accounts linked to Covid-19 TERS funds, and ordered costs.

• Preservation Order
• Unemployment Insurance Fund
• Covid19 Relief Scheme
• Asset Forfeiture
• Good Faith
• Admissibility Of Evidence

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Moyane (474/2021)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Moyane (474/2021) [2022] ZASCA 79 (31 May 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

474/2021

Judges

Zondi, Gorven, Hughes, Matojane, Smith

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the NDPP had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the vehicle was acquired with funds derived from unlawful activities, specifically money laundering. Moyane's explanations for the source of the funds were untruthful, unsupported by documentation, and failed to address the NDPP's allegations. The transfer of the vehicle to Sithole, who was unemployed and physically challenged, was a deliberate attempt to conceal ownership. The respondent's denials and averments were bald, general, and failed to raise a real, genuine or bona fide dispute of fa…

Source excerpt

• Asset Forfeiture
• Money Laundering
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Burden Of Proof
• Motion Proceedings
• Dispute Of Fact