South Africa Case Law

Special Investigating Unit v Legodi and Another (LP/01/2020)

Special Investigating Unit v Legodi and Another (LP/01/2020) [2023] ZAST 17 (18 December 2023)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

LP/01/2020

Judge

L.T. Modiba

The Tribunal found that the excipients misconstrued the nature of the SIU's claims, which are statutory and not delictual. The particulars of claim, when read as a whole, set out sufficient factual allegations to support the statutory causes of action under the PFMA and related regulations. The complaints regarding vagueness, lack of detail, and duplication were unfounded, as the claims are properly pleaded and the excipients are able to plead thereto. The existence of alternative claims does not render the main claims excipiable, and technical flaws or minor ambiguities do not justify uphold…

Source excerpt

• Special Investigating Units And Special Tribunals Act
• Public Finance Management Act
• Exception Procedure
• Pleading Requirements
• Supply Chain Management
• Fruitless And Wasteful Expenditure

Special Investigating Unit (SIU) v Mazibuko and Others (GP10/2021)

Special Investigating Unit (SIU) v Mazibuko and Others (GP10/2021) [2022] ZAST 3 (17 January 2022)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP10/2021

Judge

T. Siwendu

The Special Tribunal dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a civil forfeiture order, finding no error in its jurisdiction or factual findings.

• Civil Forfeiture
• Special Investigating Units And Special Tribunals Act
• Breach Of Duty
• Procurement Irregularities
• Civil-forfeiture
• Leave-to-appeal

Special Investigation Unit (SIU) v Mazibuko and Others (GP010/2021)

Special Investigation Unit (SIU) v Mazibuko and Others (GP010/2021) [2021] ZAST 9 (4 October 2021)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP010/2021

Judge

T Siwendu

The Tribunal found that the SIU's application fell squarely within its jurisdiction, as the relief sought was civil in nature and aimed at forfeiture of proceeds of unlawful activity. The evidence established that Mr Mazibuko was a de facto director and sole signatory of Thephunokheja's bank account, which received substantial payments from Eskom suppliers CLM and Thembathlo. The respondents failed to provide any legitimate explanation or supporting documentation for these payments, and there was no evidence of services rendered by Thephunokheja in the mining sector. The Tribunal held that Mr…

Source excerpt

• Forfeiture Of Proceeds Of Unlawful Activity
• Conflict Of Interest
• Non Disclosure Of Interest
• Prevention And Combating Of Corrupt Activities Act
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Special Investigating Units And Special Tribunals Act

Special Investigation Unit and Another v Lekalakala and Others (NW/07/2020)

Special Investigation Unit and Another v Lekalakala and Others (NW/07/2020) [2020] ZAST 1 (10 July 2020)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

NW/07/2020

Judge

Siwendu

The Tribunal found that, although the applicants did not provide all necessary details regarding the investigation and the value of the pension, there were grave allegations of misconduct against the first respondent, who was responsible for significant maladministration as accounting officer. The Tribunal accepted that section 37D(1)(b) of the Pension Funds Act, interpreted purposively and in line with Highveld Steel, empowers it to withhold payment of pension benefits pending determination of liability. The applicants established a prima facie right and a well-grounded apprehension of irrep…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Pension Fund Withholding
• Misconduct By Public Official
• Special Investigating Units And Special Tribunals Act
• Prima Facie Right
• Balance Of Convenience

Special Investigating Unit v Nadasen (5/2001)

Special Investigating Unit v Nadasen (5/2001) [2001] ZASCA 117; [2002] 2 All SA 170 (A); 2002 (1) SA 605 (SCA); 2001 (2) SACR 720 (SCA) (28 September 2001)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

5/2001

Judges

Vivier, Harms, Marais, Schutz, Cameron

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Proclamation R24 did not extend the Special Investigating Unit’s jurisdiction beyond the Eastern Cape.

• Special Investigating Units And Special Tribunals Act
• Jurisdiction Of Special Tribunals
• Interpretation Of Presidential Proclamations
• Standing Of State Institutions
• Special-investigating-units-and-special-tribunals-act
• Jurisdiction