South Africa Case Law

Maphosa v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (619/2024)

Maphosa v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (619/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 50 (27 February 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

619/2024

Judge

Hefer AJ

The court found that the applicant was personally served with the preservation order at the address he himself confirmed as his residence, despite his later denial and the Deputy Sheriff’s contradictory affidavit. The return of service was accepted as prima facie proof of service. However, the applicant had delivered an opposing affidavit to the State Attorney before the forfeiture order was granted, but due to administrative failures, the affidavit was not brought to the attention of the court or the first respondent. The court held that the forfeiture order was erroneously granted in the ab…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Service Of Process
• Forfeiture Orders

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Maine Management & Chartered Accountant (Pty) Ltd (4647/2023)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Maine Management & Chartered Accountant (Pty) Ltd (4647/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 415 (24 December 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4647/2023

Judge

Mhlambi

The High Court dismissed the NDPP’s forfeiture applications, finding the State had not proved the respondent’s banked funds were proceeds of unlawful activities.

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Forfeiture Orders
• Fraud
• Money Laundering
• Supplementary Affidavits
• Municipal Tender Disputes

L.N v N.N (A2923/005472)

L.N v N.N (A2923/005472) [2024] ZAGPJHC 772 (19 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A2923/005472

Judges

Windell, A P Den Hartog

High Court appeal upheld against a maintenance order that stripped an unemployed father of all funds. The court replaced it with monthly child maintenance and school-fee contributions.

• Maintenance Order
• Future Maintenance
• Division Of Joint Estate
• Attachment Of Pension Fund
• Child Support
• Forfeiture Orders

Ledla Structural Development (Pty) Ltd and Others v Special Investigating Unit (CCT 319/21)

Ledla Structural Development (Pty) Ltd and Others v Special Investigating Unit (CCT 319/21) [2023] ZACC 8; 2023 (6) BCLR 709 (CC); 2023 (2) SACR 1 (CC) (10 March 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 319/21

Judges

Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Mlambo, Theron, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that the Special Tribunal is not a court as contemplated by section 166 of the Constitution, given its ad hoc establishment, lack of security of tenure for members, and limited jurisdiction to civil proceedings arising from SIU investigations. However, the Tribunal is empowered by section 8(2) of the SIU Act to adjudicate any civil proceedings brought by the SIU, which includes legality reviews of unlawful contracts. The Tribunal's powers are broader than those of the Competition Tribunal, as there is no statutory carve-out limiting its jurisdiction over legality…

Source excerpt

• Special Investigating Units Act
• Legality Review
• Forfeiture Orders
• Tender Procurement
• Section 217 Constitution
• Powers Of Tribunals

South African Reserve Bank and Another v Johnine Winsome Elisie Maddocks N O and Another (1268/2021)

South African Reserve Bank and Another v Johnine Winsome Elisie Maddocks N O and Another (1268/2021) [2023] ZASCA 4; [2023] 2 All SA 61 (SCA); 2023 (4) SA 85 (SCA) (23 January 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1268/2021

Judges

Zondi, Mocumie, Gorven, Nhlangulela, Basson

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the liquidation of the companies did not nullify the blocking orders issued under the Exchange Control Regulations. As the blocking orders were extant at the time of liquidation, it was competent for the Reserve Bank to issue forfeiture orders after liquidation. The forfeiture orders did not render the Reserve Bank a creditor of the insolvent companies, nor did the forfeited monies fall into the insolvent estates for distribution by the liquidators. The regulatory framework for currency and exchanges, including the power to block and forfeit assets, opera…

Source excerpt

• Exchange Control Regulations
• Forfeiture Orders
• Blocking Orders
• Liquidation And Concursus Creditorum
• Statutory Interpretation

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

Maddocks N.O and Another v South African Reserve Bank and Another (D8203/2019)

Maddocks N.O and Another v South African Reserve Bank and Another (D8203/2019) [2021] ZAKZDHC 13 (1 April 2021)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D8203/2019

Judge

Olsen

The court held that the forfeiture orders issued by the South African Reserve Bank after the commencement of liquidation unlawfully interfered with the concursus creditorum and the statutory duties of the liquidators under the Companies Act. The Currency and Exchanges Act and its regulations do not expressly suspend the application of insolvency law in these circumstances. The court found that the Reserve Bank, by appropriating the companies' claims against the banks, effectively became a creditor subject to insolvency law. The Kwazulu-Natal High Court has jurisdiction to review and set aside…

Source excerpt

• Forfeiture Orders
• Concursus Creditorum
• Currency And Exchanges Act
• Liquidation Procedure
• Administrative Action Review
• Statutory Interpretation

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Kalmar Industries SA (Pty) Ltd (456/2015)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Kalmar Industries SA (Pty) Ltd (456/2015) [2015] ZAECPEHC 67 (8 December 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

456/2015

Judge

C Plasket

The court held that the property in question—the lifting platform and other items—were the very things alleged to have been stolen and not instrumentalities of the offence of theft. For property to qualify as an instrumentality under POCA, it must have been used to commit or facilitate the offence, not merely be the object of the offence. The statutory and jurisdictional requirements for granting a forfeiture order were therefore not met. As a result, the application for a forfeiture order was dismissed and the preservation order discharged.

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Forfeiture Orders
• Instrumentality Of Offence
• Preservation Orders
• Theft

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Maisela (28844/09)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Maisela (28844/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 166 (17 December 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

28844/09

Judge

Omar

The court found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the blue Toyota Hilux was used as an instrumentality of a schedule 1 offence. The evidence did not demonstrate a reasonably direct link between the vehicle and the alleged crime, nor that the vehicle was specifically important or adapted for the commission of the offence. The respondent's use of the vehicle was incidental and primarily for business purposes, and the alleged unlawful activities could have been facilitated by any vehicle or public transport. The court concluded that the vehicle was not fun…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Instrumentality Of Offence
• Forfeiture Orders
• Corruption
• Burden Of Proof

Nationa Director Public Prosecutions v Maisela (28844/09)

Nationa Director Public Prosecutions v Maisela (28844/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 360 (17 December 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

28844/09

Judge

Omar, AJ

The court dismissed an application to forfeit a Toyota Hilux, finding the vehicle was not proved to be an instrumentality of corruption.

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Instrumentality Of Offence
• Forfeiture Orders
• Corruption
• Burden Of Proof
• Poa-forfeiture