South Africa Case Law

Drakensberg Farms (Pty) Ltd and Another v South African Reserve Bank and Others (2022-014624)

Drakensberg Farms (Pty) Ltd and Another v South African Reserve Bank and Others (2022-014624) [2025] ZAGPPHC 199 (19 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022-014624

Judge

Botha

The court held that the applicable time limit for review of the forfeiture decision was the 90-day period prescribed by Regulation 22D(b) of the Exchange Control Regulations, not the 180-day period under PAJA. The SARB was not competent to represent to the applicants that PAJA applied. The court found no basis to depart from previous judgments of the division, which held that forfeiture orders under the Exchange Control Regulations are governed by the Act and Regulations to the exclusion of PAJA. As the application was launched outside the 90-day period, it was time-barred. The constitutional…

Source excerpt

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Judicial Review Time Limits
• Forfeiture Of Assets
• Constitutional Invalidity Challenge
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

Special Investigating Unit and Another v Ndlovu and Others (GP 19/2021)

Special Investigating Unit and Another v Ndlovu and Others (GP 19/2021) [2023] ZAST 2 (31 January 2023)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP 19/2021

Judge

L.T Modiba

The Tribunal found that the applicants were entitled to relief under section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act. The preservation orders remained operative and were not disturbed by the application for leave to appeal. The s18(3) order sought to entrench the status quo that prevailed prior to the 7 June 2022 order, ensuring the preserved assets remained under control and preventing their dissipation. The respondents failed to comply with preservation orders and did not dispute the applicants' version that the assets were proceeds of unlawful activities. The Tribunal held that the Superior Court…

Source excerpt

• Execution Pending Appeal
• Preservation Orders
• Curator Bonis
• Forfeiture Of Assets
• Special Investigating Units Act
• Superior Courts Act Application

Special Investigating Unit and Another v Ndlovu and Others (GP 19/2021)

Special Investigating Unit and Another v Ndlovu and Others (GP 19/2021) [2022] ZAST 12 (7 June 2022)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP 19/2021

Judge

L.T. Modiba

The Special Tribunal set aside unlawful NHLS PPE procurement, ordered repayment on enrichment grounds, declared preserved assets forfeit, and awarded punitive costs.

• Public Procurement Irregularity
• Condictio Ob Turpem Vel Inustam Causam
• Forfeiture Of Assets
• Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act
• Enrichment Claims
• Emergency Procurement Procedures

Special Investigation Unit and Another v Msagala and Others (GP05/2020)

Special Investigation Unit and Another v Msagala and Others (GP05/2020) [2021] ZAST 2 (31 August 2021)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP05/2020

Judge

L T Modiba

The Tribunal found, on a balance of probabilities, that Msagala received secret profits amounting to R26,423,028.77 from IGS and Sithole while employed by Transnet, in breach of his employment duties. The evidence showed that cash deposits into the Msagala Investment Trust account correlated with payments from Transnet to IGS and subsequent cash cheques issued by IGS, which were cashed by Msagala or his associates. The Tribunal rejected the defence that these funds were derived from other businesses or loan repayments, finding such explanations improbable and unsupported by evidence. IGS and…

Source excerpt

• Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
• Secret Profits
• Disgorgement Of Profits
• Statement And Debatement Of Account
• Punitive Costs
• Forfeiture Of Assets

Special Investigation Unit and Another v Msagala and Others (GP05/2020)

Special Investigation Unit and Another v Msagala and Others (GP05/2020) [2021] ZAST 7 (30 April 2021)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP05/2020

Judge

L T Modiba

The Special Tribunal found that the requirements for res judicata and lis pendens were not met. The parties are the same, but the cause of action and relief sought in the forfeiture application and the present action differ. The forfeiture order was limited to the listed assets as proceeds of unlawful activities, while the action seeks to hold the defendants personally liable for the deficit and other amounts. Relaxing the cause of action requirement to allow issue estoppel would not serve equity and fairness, especially given the defendants' vacillatory litigation conduct. The pending appeal…

Source excerpt

• Res Judicata
• Lis Pendens
• Once And For All Rule
• Forfeiture Of Assets
• Breach Of Employment Duties

Khumalo v South African Reserve Bank and Others (63330/2011)

Khumalo v South African Reserve Bank and Others (63330/2011) [2017] ZAGPPHC 866 (8 May 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

63330/2011

Judge

H.J Fabricius

The court found that the applicant had no locus standi to seek the relief claimed, as he had no direct or substantial interest in any of the assets subject to the forfeiture order, nor in the companies involved. The applicant's own affidavits confirmed that he did not own or have any interest in the relevant assets. The constitutional challenge was dismissed as hypothetical and academic, since the applicant failed to demonstrate any material bearing of the regulations on his rights. The court held that review under PAJA was not available to the applicant, as the administrative action did not…

Source excerpt

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Locus Standi
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Forfeiture Of Assets
• Declaratory Relief

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Banzana and Others (1162/2013)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Banzana and Others (1162/2013) [2013] ZAECPEHC 57 (12 November 2013)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

1162/2013

Judge

Pickering

The High Court granted a POCA forfeiture order after finding payments to the first respondent were corrupt gratification, not gifts, and the assets were proceeds of unlawful activity.

• Corruption
• Forfeiture Of Assets
• Money Laundering
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Gratification
• Contracts With Public Body

I.H.L v A.M.L (4172/2007)

I.H.L v A.M.L (4172/2007) [2011] ZAKZDHC 58 (29 November 2011)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

4172/2007

Judge

Murugasen

High Court divorce judgment dissolving the marriage, rejecting annulment, forfeiture, and universal partnership claims, and ordering repayment of a proven oral loan.

• Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage
• Forfeiture Of Assets
• Universal Partnership
• Oral Loan Agreement
• Section 5a Divorce Act
• Damages In Reconvention

National Director of Public Prosecutors v Abrahams and Another (21100/2009)

National Director of Public Prosecutors v Abrahams and Another (21100/2009) [2011] ZAWCHC 355 (12 August 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

21100/2009

Judge

Smit

The High Court ordered forfeiture of R182,551 seized from premises used as an unlicensed shebeen, finding the respondents’ explanation for the cash improbable.

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Forfeiture Of Assets
• Balance Of Probabilities
• Illegal Liquor Trade
• Asset-forfeiture
• Poaca

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Van derWalt and Another (2241/2006)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Van derWalt and Another (2241/2006) [2008] ZAECHC 6 (23 January 2008)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

2241/2006

Judge

RJW Jones

The High Court refused POCA forfeiture of R110,000 after finding genuine factual disputes about whether the money was proceeds of unlawful activity.

• Prevention Of Organized Crime Act
• Forfeiture Of Assets
• Burden Of Proof
• Dispute Of Fact
• Poa-forfeiture
• Onus-of-proof