South Africa Case Law

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Wood and Others (2019/40451)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Wood and Others (2019/40451) [2020] ZAGPJHC 264 (26 October 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/40451

Judge

Mahalelo

The High Court discharged an ex parte POCA restraint order, finding the NDPP failed to disclose material facts, including related settlement and court orders.

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Ex Parte Applications
• Duty Of Full Disclosure
• Restraint Orders
• Confiscation Orders
• Costs Orders

Falk and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions (CCT 95/10)

Falk and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions (CCT 95/10) [2011] ZACC 26; 2011 (11) BCLR 1134 (CC); 2012 (1) SACR 265 (CC) (16 August 2011)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 95/10

Judges

Van der Westhuizen, Ngcobo, Moseneke, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Mogoeng, Mthiyane, Nkabinde, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court held that the registration of the German restraint order was effected under section 24 of ICCMA and could only be set aside under the grounds listed in section 26(1) of ICCMA. The applicants failed to approach the High Court for rescission on the basis that the registration was not in accordance with ICCMA, and did not demonstrate that enforcement would be contrary to the interests of justice. The interdictory order was granted as an ancillary order under section 26(8) of POCA, following the registration of the foreign restraint order, and section 26(10)(b) of POCA do…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Orders
• International Cooperation In Criminal Matters
• Arbitrary Deprivation Of Property
• Confiscation Orders
• Interdictory Relief
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Hlongwa, National Director of Public Prosecutions v Nkosi and Others (7968/04 , 7970/04)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Hlongwa, National Director of Public Prosecutions v Nkosi and Others (7968/04 , 7970/04) [2006] ZAGPHC 16; [2006] 2 All SA 486 (T) (17 February 2006)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

7968/04 , 7970/04

Judge

E M Patel

The court found that the applicant failed to present cogent, admissible evidence to justify confirmation of the provisional restraint orders. The affidavits relied upon were defective and did not comply with statutory requirements. The evidence was substantially hearsay, unsupported by personal knowledge or proper expert opinion, and the applicant did not seek condonation for these defects. The respondents' constitutional objections were noted, but the court exercised its discretion to structure orders that preserved property pending criminal prosecution without unduly depriving the defendant…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Restraint Orders
• Confiscation Orders
• Hearsay Evidence
• Constitutional Rights
• Interim Relief