South Africa Case Law

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Sharma and Others (2427/2021)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Sharma and Others (2427/2021) [2024] ZAFSHC 416 (27 December 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2427/2021

Judge

Van Rhyn

The court held that the proceedings against the third defendant are not concluded for the purposes of s 17(a) of POCA while an application for leave to appeal is pending. The common law principle that the noting of an appeal suspends the operation of the order applies, and there is no indication that Parliament intended to alter this principle in POCA. The word 'acquitted' in s 17(a) refers to a final order, not one subject to appeal. The restraint order must remain in force to prevent dissipation of assets until the criminal proceedings are finally determined. The points of law raised by Isl…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Restraint Order
• Statutory Interpretation
• Appeal Suspension
• Confiscation Order

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Alkpehae and Another (39174/2019)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Alkpehae and Another (39174/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1321; [2025] 2 All SA 298 (GJ); 2025 (1) SACR 590 (GJ) (19 December 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

39174/2019

Judge

Barnes AJ

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to vary a confiscation order issued by the Regional Court, and the variation application is both incompetent and out of time. The requirements for a realisation order under sections 30 and 31 of POCA are satisfied: a confiscation order exists, is final, and unsatisfied. Section 52 of POCA, which allows exclusion of interests for innocent owners, applies only to forfeiture orders and not to confiscation or realisation orders. Where a defendant is married in community of property, the liability to satisfy a confiscation order attaches to the joint estate, and b…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Confiscation Order
• Realisation Of Property
• Variation Of Order
• Innocent Owner Rights
• Special Executability

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Khoza and Others (44862/2021)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Khoza and Others (44862/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1324 (19 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

44862/2021

Judge

M.P. Motha

The court found that the applicant met the low evidential threshold required under section 25 of POCA, as the uncontested evidence established reasonable grounds for believing that a confiscation order may be made against the first, second, and third defendants. The defendants failed to file answering affidavits and relied solely on attacking the founding affidavit, which was insufficient to rebut the applicant's case. The evidence showed that Tshepo Khoza manipulated procurement processes, supplied false information, and failed to declare relevant interests and relationships, thereby facilit…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Restraint Order
• Confiscation Order
• Declaration Of Interest
• Procurement Irregularities

S v Serame and Others (A57/2022)

S v Serame and Others (A57/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 309 (3 October 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A57/2022

Judge

Daniso

The High Court condoned the late filing of the respondent’s submissions and granted the State leave to appeal against specified sentences.

• Fraud
• Tax Evasion
• Sentencing Principles
• Confiscation Order
• Value Added Tax Act
• Criminal Procedure Act

Nyhonyha N O and Others v NDPP (972/2022; 973/2022; 974/2022)

Nyhonyha N O and Others v NDPP (972/2022; 973/2022; 974/2022) [2024] ZASCA 113; [2024] 3 All SA 706 (SCA); 2024 (2) SACR 358 (SCA) (16 July 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

972/2022; 973/2022; 974/2022

Judges

Nicholls, Weiner, Molefe, Coppin, Smith

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants, including family trusts and subsidiaries, hold realisable property on behalf of the defendants within the meaning of section 14(1) of POCA. The court found that the evidence established that Mr Nyhonyha and Mr Pillay exercised control over the assets of the trusts and subsidiaries, were the real beneficiaries, and treated the assets as their own. Substantial interest-free loans and control over shareholdings demonstrated that the trusts' assets were used for the defendants' benefit. The court rejected the narrow interpretation advanced by…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Restraint Order
• Realisable Property
• Trusts And Corporate Veil
• Confiscation Order
• Beneficial Ownership

Regiments Fund Managers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Nel and Another (2022-007672)

Regiments Fund Managers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Nel and Another (2022-007672) [2024] ZAGPJHC 244 (8 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022-007672

Judge

Vally

On leave to appeal, the High Court held the applicants’ directors lacked authority to litigate under a confiscation order, but granted leave to the full bench.

• Locus Standi
• Authority Of Company Directors
• Confiscation Order
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Interpretation Of Court Orders
• Locus-standi

Jack v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (18321/2022; 6171/2021)

Jack v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (18321/2022; 6171/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 284 (26 June 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

18321/2022; 6171/2021

Judge

Slingers

The applicant sought leave to register mortgage bonds over properties subject to a POCA restraint order. The High Court refused and dismissed the application with costs.

• Restraint Order
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Mortgage Bond Registration
• Third Party Interests
• Confiscation Order
• Restraint-order

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Jawaharlal and Others (2021/27377)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Jawaharlal and Others (2021/27377) [2023] ZAGPJHC 99 (8 February 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/27377

Judge

Moorcroft

The court found that the applicant had established reasonable grounds for believing that a confiscation order may be made against the defendants, as required by sections 25 and 26 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act. The evidence showed that R5 million was unlawfully transferred from A Re Ageng to Kish Gas and subsequently laundered through various parties. The respondents failed to provide substantive evidence to rebut the applicant's case, and disputes of fact raised were either unsupported or irrelevant. The court held that disputes of fact do not preclude the granting of a restraint…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Restraint Order
• Confiscation Order
• Money Laundering
• Fraud
• Disputes Of Fact

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mokatse (A24/2021 SH41/2013)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mokatse (A24/2021 SH41/2013) [2021] ZALMPPHC 74 (22 October 2021)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

A24/2021 SH41/2013

Judges

NF Kgomo, Ledwaba

The High Court held that the Regional Court remained the proper convicting court to conduct a POCA confiscation enquiry after an acquittal was overturned on appeal.

• Confiscation Order
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Functus Officio
• Jurisdiction Of Trial Court
• Criminal Appeal Procedure
• Confiscation-order

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mohapi and Others (1754/2021)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mohapi and Others (1754/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 249 (30 September 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1754/2021

Judge

Molitsoane

The High Court confirmed POCA restraint orders against the defendants, discharged the order against one respondent, dismissed a counterapplication, and made no costs order.

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Restraint Order
• Confiscation Order
• Fraudulent Tender
• Unlawful Enrichment
• Restraint-order