South Africa Case Law

Buchler v Minister of SAPS N.O. and Others (6310/2022)

Buchler v Minister of SAPS N.O. and Others (6310/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 1 (5 January 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

6310/2022

Judge

Mathebula

The court found that the warrants issued against the applicant's business were invalid due to lack of sufficient information on oath, overbroad terms, and failure to comply with the intelligibility principle. The magistrate did not have adequate facts before her to establish objective jurisdictional facts or reasonable suspicion. The warrants failed to specify the relevant offences and assets with sufficient particularity, and some items listed had no connection to the alleged offences. The court held that the mandament van spolie remedy was available to the applicant, as the deprivation of p…

Source excerpt

• Search And Seizure
• Mandament Van Spolie
• Intelligibility Principle
• Jurisdictional Facts
• Warrant Validity

De Beer N.O and Others v Magistrate of Dundee N.O and Others (5148/2020P)

De Beer N.O and Others v Magistrate of Dundee N.O and Others (5148/2020P) [2020] ZAKZPHC 70; [2021] 1 All SA 405 (KZP) (19 November 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

5148/2020P

Judge

Mngadi

High Court review set aside a section 69 Insolvency Act warrant, finding it was applied for before formal appointment and executed unlawfully.

• Search And Seizure
• Insolvency Act Section 69
• Liquidator Authority
• Urgent Application
• Warrant Validity
• Search-and-seizure

Internet Lounge Schoeman (Pty) Ltd v Minister of SAPS NO and Others (5475/2016)

Internet Lounge Schoeman (Pty) Ltd v Minister of SAPS NO and Others (5475/2016) [2017] ZALMPPHC 28 (20 April 2017)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

5475/2016

Judge

M V Semenya

The court found that the search and seizure warrant issued by the fourth respondent was neither overbroad nor unintelligible. The warrant was based on reasonable grounds, supported by sworn statements and ongoing investigations into suspected illegal gambling activities at the applicant's premises. The description of articles to be seized was sufficiently specific and tailored to the investigation, and the warrant met the intelligibility test required by law. The fourth respondent applied her mind to the facts presented and did not merely rubber-stamp the application. The warrant was validly…

Source excerpt

• Search And Seizure
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Gambling Regulation
• Warrant Validity
• Intelligibility Test

Internet Lounge Schoeman (Pty) Ltd v Minister of SAPS NO and Others (5475/2016)

Internet Lounge Schoeman (Pty) Ltd v Minister of SAPS NO and Others (5475/2016) [2017] ZALMPPHC 50 (20 April 2017)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

5475/2016

Judge

M V Semenya

The court found that the search and seizure warrant issued by the fourth respondent was neither overbroad nor unintelligible. The warrant was based on sworn statements and evidence that established reasonable grounds for suspicion of ongoing illegal gambling activities at the applicant's premises. The description of articles to be seized was sufficiently connected to the investigation and tailored to the circumstances, meeting the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Act and relevant case law. The fourth respondent applied her mind to the facts and did not merely rubber-stamp the applicatio…

Source excerpt

• Search And Seizure
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Gambling Regulation
• Warrant Validity
• Intelligibility Test

Grammaticus (Pty) Ltd v Minister of South African Police and Others (8694/14)

Grammaticus (Pty) Ltd v Minister of South African Police and Others (8694/14) [2017] ZAGPPHC 136 (22 March 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

8694/14

Judge

S P Mothle

The court found that the application was not urgent, as the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that relief could not be obtained in due course. Although the applicant provided respondents with unreasonably short notice and improper service, the respondents managed to file comprehensive answering affidavits and did not seek postponement. The applicant failed to comply with Rule 53 by not requesting the record or reasons for the Magistrate's decision, but since some grounds of attack were based on the face of the documents, the application was not dismissed solely on this basis…

Source excerpt

• Search And Seizure
• Urgent Interdict
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Spoliation
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Warrant Validity

Ruskopoint (Pty) Ltd t/a Old Mill Gaming Centre v Minister od SAPS N.O and Others (1427/2016)

Ruskopoint (Pty) Ltd t/a Old Mill Gaming Centre v Minister od SAPS N.O and Others (1427/2016) [2016] ZAECGHC 74 (8 September 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1427/2016

Judge

M.J Lowe

High Court review setting aside a search warrant for illegal gambling premises, finding it ultra vires because it authorized non-police participants and lacked support for naming Ms Williams.

• Search And Seizure
• Ultra Vires
• Gambling And Betting Act
• Warrant Validity
• Search-and-seizure
• Warrant-validity

Sithole v Minister of Police and Another (3069/2015)

Sithole v Minister of Police and Another (3069/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 65 (28 April 2016)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3069/2015

Judge

Kruger

The High Court set aside a search and seizure at the applicant’s home because the warrant was addressed only to “The Station Commander,” contrary to section 21 of the CPA.

• Search And Seizure
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Warrant Validity
• Privacy Rights
• Search-and-seizure
• Search-warrants

Wireless Business Solutions (Pty) Limited v Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (2013/11814)

Wireless Business Solutions (Pty) Limited v Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (2013/11814) [2014] ZAGPJHC 104 (1 April 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2013/11814

Judge

Mundell

The court held that the applicant's radio frequency spectrum licenses had expired automatically due to non-payment of annual license fees, as required by Regulation 9(3) of the Radio Frequency Spectrum Regulations. The argument that the respondent could elect whether to treat the licenses as expired was rejected; the regulation's deeming provision is mandatory and not discretionary. Regulation 12, which allows for suspension and withdrawal, does not conflict with Regulation 9, as they address different circumstances: automatic expiry for non-payment and suspension/withdrawal as an additional…

Source excerpt

• Radio Frequency Spectrum Licensing
• License Fee Nonpayment
• Administrative Action Review
• Search And Seizure
• Warrant Validity

Minister of Safety and Security and Others v Mohamed and Another (598/10)

Minister of Safety and Security and Others v Mohamed and Another (598/10) [2011] ZASCA 134; [2012] 1 All SA 35 (SCA); 2012 (1) SACR 321 (SCA) (21 September 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

598/10

Judges

NAVSA, HEHER, CACHALIA, SNYDERS, PLASKET

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the warrant was validly issued under sections 20 and 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act, based on information on oath that established reasonable suspicion of serious offences. The magistrate properly exercised judicial oversight, and the warrant was not overly broad but followed the statutory language. The majority in the court a quo erred in extending the grounds of appeal and in their interpretation of the requirements for search warrants. The respondents failed to substantiate their claims regarding overbreadth and constitutional violations. The applica…

Source excerpt

• Search And Seizure
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Judicial Oversight
• Warrant Validity

Polonyfis v Minister of Police and Others (64/10)

Polonyfis v Minister of Police and Others (64/10) [2011] ZASCA 26; 2012 (1) SACR 57 (SCA) (18 March 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

64/10

Judges

Brand, Maya, Cachalia, Shongwe, Petse

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the search warrant was valid as the magistrate was entitled to authorise seizure under all three sub-sections of section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act, given the jurisdictional facts. The description of the premises was sufficiently precise for identification, and the absence of the supporting affidavit during execution did not render the search unlawful since it was available and could have been requested. The seizure of items not listed in the warrant did not amount to an abuse of power or gross violation of rights; the appropriate remedy was the ret…

Source excerpt

• Search And Seizure
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Warrant Validity
• Abuse Of Power