Jordaan and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (5833/2023; 5325/2023) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 52 (11 June 2025)
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Case number
5833/2023; 5325/2023
Judge
Moleleki
The High Court dismissed an application to release restrained funds for legal and living expenses under POCA, finding inadequate disclosure and unmet jurisdictional requirements.
Smith v Hills and Another (2025/055555; 2021/4094; SS 79/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 503 (23 May 2025)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2025/055555
Judge
T P Mudau
The High Court dismissed an urgent POCA application for release of restrained funds for legal fees, finding insufficient disclosure of restrained and unrestrained assets.
Mokoena and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (11305/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 967 (30 September 2024)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
11305/2022
Judge
MMP Mdalana-Mayisela
The court found that the first applicant, as both a trustee and beneficiary of the Trust, is entitled to apply for the release of funds from restrained property for reasonable legal and living expenses under section 26(6) of POCA. The applicant made full disclosure of his interests in the restrained property and demonstrated that he cannot meet the legal and living expenses from unrestrained property. The legal expenses incurred are reasonable and directly related to proceedings under POCA. The tertiary education fees for the first applicant’s daughter, who is a minor and not self-supporting,…
Regiments Fund Managers (PTY) Ltd and Others v The National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (40451/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 659 (1 September 2022)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
40451/2019
Judge
ML Senyatsi
The court found that the application was urgent due to the ongoing Supreme Court of Appeal proceedings and the inability of the applicants to obtain substantial redress if the matter were heard in the ordinary course. The applicants had made full disclosure of their assets to the curator bonis, who confirmed compliance with disclosure obligations. The refusal to release funds for legal expenses was not justified, especially as the applicants could not meet these expenses from unrestrained property. The requirements of section 26(6) of POCA were satisfied, and the legal expenses were market-re…
Ngcobo v National Director of Public Prosecutions (D8053/2019) [2021] ZAKZDHC 42 (13 December 2021)
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Case number
D8053/2019
Judge
Marks
The court dismissed Sandile Ngcobo’s POCA application for release of restrained assets and R1 million for living and legal expenses for lack of full disclosure.
De Beer v Minister of Police (69360/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 959 (17 November 2015)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
69360/2013
Judge
JJ Strijdom
The court found that the Defendant failed to prove the jurisdictional facts required for a lawful arrest under Section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The Plaintiff's conduct amounted to common assault, which is not a Schedule 1 offence unless serious injury is inflicted, and no such injury was proven. The arresting officer did not have reasonable grounds to suspect the Plaintiff of a Schedule 1 offence. The Plaintiff's detention was therefore unlawful. The court accepted the Plaintiff's evidence regarding loss of income, finding that the police were aware of the scheduled business me…
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Elran (A5050/10, 06/4577) [2012] ZAGPJHC 138 (8 March 2012)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
A5050/10, 06/4577
Judges
Masipa, Mathopo, Scholtz
The court found that Mr Elran had disclosed under oath all his interests in property subject to the Preservation Order and had provided a sworn statement of his assets and liabilities, satisfying the requirements of section 44(2)(b) of POCA. The funds received from friends and family for living expenses did not constitute property for the purposes of POCA, and there was no evidence that Mr Elran possessed property not subject to the Preservation Order sufficient to meet his legal expenses. The NDPP's allegations regarding undisclosed assets were either accounted for or not relevant to the sta…
Bowker v Ferreira NO and Another (2109/11) [2011] ZAECGHC 47 (22 September 2011)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Case number
2109/11
Judge
J.E Smith
The court found that the funds sought by the applicant for legal expenses were almost entirely derived from assets misappropriated from the victim and his close corporation. The applicant admitted substantial indebtedness, and the restrained assets may not be sufficient to cover the outstanding debt. Releasing the funds would result in dissipation of assets to the prejudice of the victim. The applicant had not applied for legal aid, which she would likely qualify for, and instead sought to employ counsel of her own choice using disputed funds. The court held that the applicant is not entitled…
Naidoo and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (CCT 112/10) [2011] ZACC 24; 2011 (12) BCLR 1239 (CC); 2012 (1) SACR 358 (CC) (10 August 2011)
Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT 112/10
Judges
Cameron, Ngcobo, Moseneke, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Mogoeng, Mthiyane, Nkabinde, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob
Section 26(6) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act does not permit a court to authorise payment of a defendant's legal expenses from assets held by persons other than the defendant. The statutory scheme requires restraint orders to be individualised and applies only to property held by the person against whom the order is made. The mechanism for access to restrained assets for legal expenses is narrowly crafted and cannot be overridden by the general powers in section 26(1). The interpretation advanced by the applicants is not tenable in light of the statutory language and purpose, which…
Msimango and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another, Ex parte: In re National Director of Public Prosecutions v Msimango and Others (1880/2008, 1334/2008) [2011] ZAFSHC 17 (3 February 2011)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
1880/2008, 1334/2008
Judge
S. Ebrahim
The court found that the applicants had made full disclosure of their interests in the restrained property both in their founding papers and to the Asset Forfeiture Unit. The respondents failed to provide evidence that the amounts claimed for legal expenses were unreasonable or that the applicants could meet such expenses from unrestrained property. The court held that section 26(6) of POCA does not distinguish between legal expenses for restraint proceedings and related criminal proceedings, and the applicants' right to legal representation is constitutionally protected. The omission in the…
