South Africa Case Law

Evergrand Trading (Pty) Ltd v South Africa Reserve Bank and Another (54068/2020)

Evergrand Trading (Pty) Ltd v South Africa Reserve Bank and Another (54068/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 739 (3 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

54068/2020

Judge

Ceylon I

High Court dismissed Evergrand’s late review of a Reserve Bank forfeiture, holding the 90-day statutory limit applied and condonation was not justified.

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Forfeiture Orders
• Condonation Of Delay
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Currency And Exchanges Act
• Judicial Review Time Limits

Mat Chem CC v Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service (7139/2019)

Mat Chem CC v Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service (7139/2019) [2020] ZAKZPHC 71; 83 SATC 535 (20 November 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

7139/2019

Judge

Mnguni

High Court appeal over customs forfeiture and remission denied; court upheld SARS’s demand and dismissed Mat Chem CC’s appeal with costs.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Rebate Of Duty
• Forfeiture Of Goods
• Mitigation Of Penalties
• Administrative Discretion
• Customs-and-excise-act

GPC Developments CC and Others v Uys (A71/2017)

GPC Developments CC and Others v Uys (A71/2017) [2017] ZAWCHC 80; [2017] 4 All SA 14 (WCC) (15 August 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A71/2017

Judges

Gamble, Dlodlo, Fortuin

The High Court held that the sellers did not lawfully cancel the sale agreement because they failed to follow the addendum’s cancellation procedure, so the eviction failed.

• Eviction
• Lex Commissoria
• Contract Cancellation
• Forfeiture Of Payments
• Breach Of Contract
• Contract-cancellation

RZT Zelpy 4094 (Proprietary) Limited v Lester (A911/2015)

RZT Zelpy 4094 (Proprietary) Limited v Lester (A911/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 317 (30 June 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A911/2015

Judges

TM Makgoka, Molopa-Sethosa, N Ranchod

The court held that the appellant was entitled to repossession of the goods upon cancellation of the agreement due to the respondent's breach. The agreement did not require the appellant to make an election between retaining payments as penalty or claiming damages before seeking return of the goods. Clause 6.2.1 imposed an obligation on the respondent to deliver possession of the goods to the appellant upon cancellation, irrespective of any election under clause 6.2.2. The respondent's entitlement to possession was solely based on the agreement, which had been lawfully terminated. The appella…

Source excerpt

• Contract Cancellation
• Rei Vindicatio
• Penalty Clauses
• Forfeiture
• Interpretation Of Contracts

S v Dyantyie (CA&R327/16)

S v Dyantyie (CA&R327/16) [2016] ZAECGHC 132 (17 November 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R327/16

Judges

S M Mbenenge, N Ntlama

Review judgment setting aside an incompetent magistrate’s sentence for dealing in dagga and replacing it with a suspended prison term, a fine, and forfeiture.

• Drugs And Drug Trafficking Act
• Sentencing
• Forfeiture Of Property
• Criminal-law
• Drug-offences
• Review-proceedings

Coconut Express CC v South African Revenue Service (Custome & Excise) and Others (5324/2015)

Coconut Express CC v South African Revenue Service (Custome & Excise) and Others (5324/2015) [2016] ZAKZDHC 15; [2016] 2 All SA 749 (KZD); 78 SATC 297 (5 April 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

5324/2015

Judge

Madondo

The court found that the applicant was not exempted from compliance with the Customs and Excise Act by virtue of the 5 November 2015 court order. The applicant's conduct in transporting, repackaging, and diverting the goods without proper authorisation constituted contraventions of the Act. The respondents' initial detention of the goods was lawful for the purpose of investigating these infractions. However, the continued detention was not justified, as the investigation had been completed and the applicant had complied with the requirements for release, including payment of the administrativ…

Source excerpt

• Customs And Excise Act
• Contempt Of Court
• Detention Of Goods
• Forfeiture
• Administrative Penalty
• Urgent Interdict

Auto Haus Car Hire and Tours (Pvt) Ltd v Commissioner South African Revenue Services and Another (18077/2015)

Auto Haus Car Hire and Tours (Pvt) Ltd v Commissioner South African Revenue Services and Another (18077/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 167; 77 SATC 248 (2 April 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

18077/2015

Judge

N M Mavundla

Urgent application to stop the sale of a Rolls Royce was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove ownership and a prima facie right.

• Interim Interdict
• Customs And Excise Act
• Urgency
• Ownership Dispute
• Forfeiture Of Goods
• Urgent-interdict

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Merensky and Others (CIV F 01/10)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Merensky and Others (CIV F 01/10) [2011] ZANWHC 13 (11 March 2011)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CIV F 01/10

Judges

R D Hendricks, Samkelo Gura, N Gutta

Full Bench appeal over discharged POCA preservation orders. The court held the discharge was appealable, condoned late filing, and set the discharge aside.

• Preservation Order
• Appealability
• Condonation
• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Proceeds Of Crime
• Forfeiture Application

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Abrina 6822 and Others (7432/10)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Abrina 6822 and Others (7432/10) [2010] ZAKZPHC 77; 2011 (1) SACR 419 (KZP) (30 November 2010)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

7432/10

Judge

Wallis

The court held that the preservation of property order under s 38 of POCA was properly granted, as there were reasonable grounds to believe that the farms and associated assets acquired by Abrina 6822 constituted the proceeds of unlawful activities, specifically fraud perpetrated on the PGAC and the Department of Land Affairs. The court rejected the respondents' argument that POCA is limited to organised crime, finding that both the Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court have interpreted POCA's scope broadly to include common law offences such as fraud. The innocence of the current…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Preservation Order
• Proceeds Of Unlawful Activities
• Fraud
• Forfeiture
• Ex Parte Application

South African Revenue Services (Customs & Excise) v Desmonds Clearing and Forwarding Agents CC (039/05)

South African Revenue Services (Customs & Excise) v Desmonds Clearing and Forwarding Agents CC (039/05) [2006] ZASCA 9; 2006 (4) SA 284 (SCA); 68 SATC 181 (16 March 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

039/05

Judges

MPATI, STREICHER, NUGENT, CLOETE, CACHALIA

The court held that temporary storage of trailers en route to Zimbabwe was not a diversion under section 18(13) of the Customs and Excise Act.

• Customs And Excise Act
• Goods In Transit
• Forfeiture
• Removal In Bond
• Customs-and-excise
• Goods-in-bond