South Africa Case Law

Maboko v Minister of Police and Others (2025-033306)

Maboko v Minister of Police and Others (2025-033306) [2025] ZAGPPHC 389 (11 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025-033306

Judge

GN Moshoana

The court held that the mandament van spolie is not available where property is seized by the police under statutory authority and not as a result of a possessory dispute or self-help. The police did not stake any possessory or ownership rights over the vehicle, but acted under the Criminal Procedure Act in investigating a reported robbery. The applicant's claim for spoliation fails because the seizure was lawful and statutorily authorised, and any challenge to the legality of the police's actions should be brought by way of judicial review, not spoliation. The applicant's claims for patrimon…

Source excerpt

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Seizure Of Property
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Statutory Powers Of Police
• Judicial Review
• Urgent Motion

Kenakobiz Trading 104 CC v Minister of Police and Others (1069/2021)

Kenakobiz Trading 104 CC v Minister of Police and Others (1069/2021) [2023] ZANCHC 7 (27 January 2023)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1069/2021

Judge

O.K. Chwaro

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the seized items would not be required for future criminal proceedings. The mere undertaking to keep and avail the items is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 31(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The applicant did not obtain confirmation from the Director of Public Prosecutions that the items would not be needed, nor did it demonstrate that criminal proceedings would not be reinstituted. The interests of justice and the State's need to preserve evidence outweigh the applicant's busin…

Source excerpt

• Seizure Of Property
• Return Of Seized Items
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 31
• Instrumentality Of Offence

Mkhehle v Station Commander, Central Police Station and Others (1669/2022)

Mkhehle v Station Commander, Central Police Station and Others (1669/2022) [2022] ZAECMHC 52 (1 December 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

1669/2022

Judge

NQUMSE

Urgent application for return of a liquor licence and seized liquor failed; the court held the applicant did not prove the licence was valid.

• State Liability Act Compliance
• Urgency In Motion Proceedings
• Seizure Of Property
• Burden Of Proof
• Costs Award
• Liquor-licence

Qibing Transport Association and Others v MEC for Police, Roads, Transport, Free State Province and Others (1339/2014)

Qibing Transport Association and Others v MEC for Police, Roads, Transport, Free State Province and Others (1339/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 51 (17 April 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1339/2014

Judge

L.J. Lekale

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a clear and exclusive right to the disputed taxi route, as neither the applicants nor the respondent taxi operators possessed authorisations for the specific route described in the notice of motion. The applicants did not file replies to the respondents' versions, leaving material facts uncontested, including the employment status of the second respondent and the necessity to join the Minister of Safety and Security. The police were entitled to seize the vehicles under section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the applicants had an a…

Source excerpt

• Urgent Interdict
• Non Joinder
• Taxi Route Authorisation
• Seizure Of Property
• Alternative Remedy
• Costs Order

Venter v Minister van Polisie (13652/2013)

Venter v Minister van Polisie (13652/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 64 (3 February 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

13652/2013

Judge

De Klerk

The applicant failed to demonstrate that there were no pending criminal proceedings or that there was no reasonable likelihood of such proceedings being instituted in the foreseeable future. The respondent's explanation that a criminal case was still pending was accepted, and it was confirmed that the applicant had recently appeared in court. Accordingly, the requirements for the return of seized property under the Criminal Procedure Act were not met, and the application could not succeed.

Source excerpt

• Seizure Of Property
• Return Of Seized Articles
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Pending Criminal Proceedings

Mathabatha v Minister of Safety & Security (5127/2010)

Mathabatha v Minister of Safety & Security (5127/2010) [2010] ZAFSHC 147 (18 November 2010)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5127/2010

Judge

H.M. Musi

The Free State High Court struck an urgent application off the roll after finding that the applicant had not shown sufficient urgency to justify immediate hearing.

• Urgency In Motion Proceedings
• Seizure Of Property
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 20
• Urgency-in-motion-proceedings
• Seizure-of-property
• Criminal-procedure-act-section-20

Mzimba v MEC for Transport and Civil Aviation and Another (465/00)

Mzimba v MEC for Transport and Civil Aviation and Another (465/00) [2000] ZANWHC 12 (14 September 2000)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

465/00

Judge

Nkabinde

Urgent application to recover a seized passenger vehicle failed because the court found the paper produced was only a permit-transfer application, not a valid permit.

• Road Transportation Act
• Permit Authorisation
• Urgent Interdict
• Seizure Of Property
• Urgent-application
• Road-transport-permit