South Africa Case Law

Shushu and Others v Distell Ltd (Springs) (JS81/21)

Shushu and Others v Distell Ltd (Springs) (JS81/21) [2024] ZALCJHB 527; (2025) 46 ILJ 1000 (LC) (10 December 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS81/21

Judge

Myburgh, AJ

The court found that the company failed to establish a fair operational requirement for the applicants' dismissal. The company had already achieved its cost-saving objective through the voluntary agreement of nearly all employees, and the additional saving from dismissing the applicants was negligible. The stated rationale of ensuring consistency and avoiding labour disputes did not constitute a valid operational requirement. Even if cost-saving was accepted as the rationale, the company did not demonstrate the material impact of the additional saving. The dismissals were found to be dispropo…

Source excerpt

• Retrenchment
• Operational Requirements
• Substantive Fairness
• Proportionality Analysis
• Covid 19 Employment Measures
• Unfair Dismissal

National Director of Prosecutions v Smith and Another (1914/2019)

National Director of Prosecutions v Smith and Another (1914/2019) [2024] ZANCHC 63; 2025 (1) SACR 21 (NCK) (19 July 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1914/2019

Judge

Eillert

The court found that the Ford Ranger and Sako rifle were instrumentalities of the poaching offences, as they were directly used to facilitate the illegal hunting and transportation of protected game. The link between the property and the offences was sufficiently close, and the property was integral to the commission of the crimes. The Second Respondent, although not directly involved in the offences, was made aware of the allegations and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent further illegal use of his property. He did not discharge the onus required for the innocent owner defence under…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Forfeiture Of Instrumentality
• Innocent Owner Defence
• Nature Conservation Act
• Proportionality Analysis

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Biru (1598/2022)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Biru (1598/2022) [2024] ZAECQBHC 30 (23 April 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

1598/2022

Judge

PITT

The court found that the applicant proved on a balance of probabilities that the Toyota Quantum panel van was a substantial and meaningful instrumentality in the commission of the offence of illegal possession and transportation of stolen and/or suspected stolen goods. The respondent's version was inconsistent and failed to establish the innocent owner defence, as he did not provide credible evidence of lack of knowledge or reasonable grounds to suspect the property was used in the offence. The link between the property and the crime was direct and functional, as the vehicle was used to trans…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Forfeiture Of Property
• Innocent Owner Defence
• Proportionality Analysis

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Samuel and Others (9863/2016)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Samuel and Others (9863/2016) [2023] ZAKZDHC 38 (30 June 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

9863/2016

Judge

Henriques

The court found that the applicant had established on a balance of probabilities that the property listed in Annexure B, except for items 5, 6, and 12, constituted the proceeds of unlawful activities, specifically fraud perpetrated against Tiger Brands. The funds were channelled through various accounts and used to acquire assets and investments for the respondents. The respondents failed to discharge the onus to prove that their interests were acquired legally or that they were innocent owners. The court held that the forfeiture was not disproportionate given the scale of the fraud and the l…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Forfeiture Of Proceeds Of Crime
• Innocent Owner Defence
• Proportionality Analysis
• Money Laundering
• Fraud

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Khoza and Another (1406/2022)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Khoza and Another (1406/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 292 (4 November 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1406/2022

Judge

JP Daffue

The court found that the NDPP had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the Scania truck, tanker trailer, and Toyota Land Cruiser were used as instruments in the commission of theft of diesel, a schedule 1 offence under POCA. The respondents' version was rejected as implausible, unsubstantiated, and contradicted by objective evidence, including statements from their own employees. The court held that the preservation order was properly obtained and that the forfeiture application was brought timeously. In conducting the proportionality analysis, the court considered the value of th…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Asset Forfeiture
• Instrumentality Of Crime
• Proportionality Analysis
• Preservation Order

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Ngunge (1792/2019)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Ngunge (1792/2019) [2022] ZANCHC 13 (25 March 2022)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1792/2019

Judges

Mamosebo, Lever, Nxumalo

The High Court upheld the NDPP’s appeal and ordered forfeiture of an Isuzu bakkie and R15,500 cash under POCA.

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Forfeiture Of Property
• Instrumentality Of Offence
• Innocent Owner Defence
• Proportionality Analysis
• Prevention-of-organised-crime-act

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mpahlwa (3556/2017)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mpahlwa (3556/2017) [2020] ZAECMHC 18 (9 June 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

3556/2017

Judge

R W N Brooks

The court found that the applicant had discharged the onus of proving that the Golf 4 motor vehicle was used as an instrumentality in the commission of kidnapping and robbery, based on detailed and largely uncontested factual allegations. The respondent's version was found to lack credibility and detail, failing to establish the innocent owner defence under section 52 of POCA. The court held that forfeiture of the property was proportionate and did not amount to arbitrary deprivation, given the seriousness of the offences and the legislative objectives of POCA. The respondent's application fo…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Forfeiture Of Property
• Innocent Owner Defence
• Proportionality Analysis
• Motion Proceedings
• Onus Of Proof

Mohamed and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (21402/20)

Mohamed and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (21402/20) [2020] ZAGPPHC 120; [2020] 2 All SA 844 (GP); 2020 (7) BCLR 865 (GP); 2020 (5) SA 553 (GP) (30 April 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21402/20

Judge

Neukircher

The court held that the lockdown regulations, though imposing severe limitations on constitutional rights including freedom of religion, movement, and association, are reasonable and justifiable under section 36 of the Constitution in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The regulations are time-bound, based on expert advice, and designed to protect life, dignity, and access to healthcare by limiting social contact and preventing the healthcare system from being overwhelmed. The applicants' request for exemptions for religious gatherings would pose significant risks to public health, be impo…

Source excerpt

• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Freedom Of Religion
• Disaster Management Act
• Lockdown Regulations
• Proportionality Analysis

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mjeza (598/2015)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mjeza (598/2015) [2016] ZANCHC 53 (1 April 2016)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

598/2015

Judge

Erasmus, AJ

The court found that the maroon Volkswagen Jetta was directly used to transport stolen livestock and thus constituted an instrumentality of offences under Schedule 1 to POCA, including stock theft and contravention of section 8 of the Stock Theft Act. The respondent's version that he was threatened was rejected as improbable and unsupported by evidence. He knew or at least suspected the livestock was stolen, yet still transported it. The respondent failed to discharge the onus under section 52 to prove he did not know or ought not reasonably to have known the property was an instrumentality o…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Forfeiture Of Property
• Instrumentality Of Crime
• Stock Theft
• Proportionality Analysis

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Salie and Another (384/2012)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Salie and Another (384/2012) [2014] ZAWCHC 40; [2014] 2 All SA 688 (WCC); 2015 (1) SACR 121 (WCC) (26 March 2014)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

384/2012

Judge

Breitenbach AJ

The court found that the respondents operated brothels and lived on the earnings of prostitution, as evidenced by their own statements and corroborating affidavits. The respondents failed to provide credible evidence of legitimate income, and their denials were inconsistent, implausible, and unsupported. The properties and motor vehicle were retained using proceeds from unlawful activities, satisfying the requirements for forfeiture under POCA. The court held that proportionality applies to forfeiture of proceeds, but in this case, the value of the property was less than the proven unlawful i…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Forfeiture Of Property
• Brothel Keeping
• Living On Earnings Of Prostitution
• Proportionality Analysis
• Arbitrary Deprivation Of Property