South Africa Case Law

Brits v Minister of Police & Another (759/2020)

Brits v Minister of Police & Another (759/2020) [2021] ZASCA 161 (23 November 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

759/2020

Judges

Petse, Mathopo, Mocumie, Molemela, Mothle

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the arrest of the appellant was unlawful as the jurisdictional facts required for a lawful arrest under section 40(1)(b) or (e) of the Criminal Procedure Act were not present. The transaction for the copper cables had not been concluded, and the appellant had not exercised control over the goods. The SMS exchange did not provide a reasonable basis for suspicion, and the police officer acted prematurely without properly assessing the situation. The appellant was not 'found in possession' of suspected stolen property as required by section 36 of Act 62 of…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Arrest
• Vicarious Liability
• Quantum Of Damages
• Reasonable Suspicion
• Second Hand Goods Act

Money Box Investments 268 (Pty) Ltd v Easy Greens Farming and Farm Produce CC (A221/2019)

Money Box Investments 268 (Pty) Ltd v Easy Greens Farming and Farm Produce CC (A221/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 599 (16 September 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A221/2019

Judges

Raulinga, Basson, Strijdom

Appeal dismissed against refusal to rescind a default judgment. The court held the rescission application was not brought timeously and no bona fide defence was shown.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Condonation
• Locus Standi
• Undisclosed Principal
• Second Hand Goods Act
• Rescission-of-judgment

ABC Trading CC v Commissioner of the South African Revenue Services (1712)

ABC Trading CC v Commissioner of the South African Revenue Services (1712) [2020] ZATC 6; 83 SATC 60 (29 April 2020)

Court

Tax Court

Case number

VAT 1712

Judges

Windell, S. Makda, L. Luvono

The Tax Court upheld ABC Trading CC’s appeal, finding it proved disputed gold supplies from X Gold and Z Gold and that SARS’s input VAT disallowance was unreasonable.

• Input Vat Deduction
• Burden Of Proof
• Recipient Generated Invoices
• Second Hand Goods Act
• Understatement Penalty
• Input-vat

Oditrim (Pty) Ltd v Learned Additional Magistrate, Colesburg and Others (329/2018)

Oditrim (Pty) Ltd v Learned Additional Magistrate, Colesburg and Others (329/2018) [2020] ZANCHC 2 (21 February 2020)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

329/2018

Judges

Mamosebo, Chwaro

The High Court dismissed a review of a section 205 subpoena, holding that non-joinder and alleged non-disclosure did not justify setting aside the magistrate’s decision.

• Section 205 Subpoena
• Second Hand Goods Act
• Judicial Discretion
• Non Joinder
• Ex Parte Applications
• Review Of Magistrate Decision

Minister of Safety and Security v Pavier (37286/2013)

Minister of Safety and Security v Pavier (37286/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 727 (15 November 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

37286/2013

Judge

Nkosi

High Court granted leave to appeal and condonation, finding a reasonable prospect of a different outcome on arrest, evidence procedure, and assault issues.

• Unlawful Arrest
• Second Hand Goods Act
• Warrantless Arrest
• Onus Of Proof
• Condonation
• Quantum Of Damages

Boshoff v Minister of Safety and Security (1762/13)

Boshoff v Minister of Safety and Security (1762/13) [2017] ZANWHC 10 (17 February 2017)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1762/13

Judge

Kgoele

The court found that the defendant discharged the onus of proving the lawfulness of the arrest and detention. The arresting officer, Captain Mothowagae, formed a reasonable suspicion based on the presence of burnt copper cable identified by Eskom officials, the plaintiff's admission of managerial control, and her failure to provide a reasonable explanation for the copper's origin. The court held that the jurisdictional facts for arrest under section 40(1)(e) of the Criminal Procedure Act were satisfied, and the officer exercised her discretion rationally and in good faith. The plaintiff's cha…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Arrest
• Detention Without Warrant
• Second Hand Goods Act
• Reasonable Suspicion
• Section 40 Criminal Procedure Act

Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality and Others v East London Motor Vehicle Street Traders Association (CA348/2013)

Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality and Others v East London Motor Vehicle Street Traders Association (CA348/2013) [2015] ZAECGHC 66 (25 June 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA348/2013

Judges

C Plasket, I Schoeman

The High Court held that the Association had not proved possession of public parking space, and that municipal warnings about impoundment were lawful enforcement, not spoliation.

• Spoliation Order
• Interdict
• Municipal By Laws
• Unlawful Occupation
• Second Hand Goods Act
• Spoliation

Bosman N.O, and Another v Mortimer Toyota (Edms) Bpk (Reitz) (2403/2013)

Bosman N.O, and Another v Mortimer Toyota (Edms) Bpk (Reitz) (2403/2013) [2015] ZAFSHC 93 (23 May 2015)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2403/2013

Judge

Daffue

The High Court dismissed a trust’s claim for R250,000 over a Hilux, finding no binding oral agreement and no ostensible authority or estoppel against the dealership.

• Ostensible Authority
• Estoppel
• Breach Of Contract
• Second Hand Goods Act
• Consumer Protection Act
• Ostensible-authority

Rossouw v Minister of Police and Others (141/2012)

Rossouw v Minister of Police and Others (141/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 132 (5 July 2012)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

141/2012

Judge

H. Murray

The Court found that the search warrant was invalid as it failed to specify the correct premises, the items to be seized, and the applicable offences. The warrant was addressed to 'All police officers', authorised a search of 'Gusmec Scrap Metal' rather than Vaalkrantz, and only mentioned 'Copper' without further detail. The information before the issuing magistrate was insufficient to justify the warrant. The subsequent search and seizure operation was conducted at Vaalkrantz and included items not specified in the warrant. The respondents failed to provide necessary averments to justify a w…

Source excerpt

• Search And Seizure
• Invalid Search Warrant
• Second Hand Goods Act
• Constitutional Rights
• Return Of Seized Property