Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Smith v Hills and Another (2025/055555; 2021/4094; SS 79/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 503 (23 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed an urgent POCA application for release of restrained funds for legal fees, finding insufficient disclosure of restrained and unrestrained assets.
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)
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…
Source excerpt
Van Zyl and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (40839/2008) [2009] ZAGPHC 44 (22 January 2009)
The court dismissed an application for release of restrained funds for legal and living expenses under POCA, finding inadequate disclosure, but allowed the second applicant to retain her weekly income.
P U Injection Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd v Nebank Limited and Another (28794/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 184 (4 May 2006)
The High Court held that the applicant’s claim for released exchange-control funds had not prescribed and granted payment against Nedbank.
Explore more
