About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZAFSHC 55
|
|
Varikas v Minister Of Safety And Security and Others (4449/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 55 (24 April 2014)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
FREE
STATE
DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
CASE
NO: 4449/2013
In the matter between:
MICHAEL
VARIKAS
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF SAFETY
AND
SECURITY
N.O.
1
st
Respondent
THE PROVINCIAL
COMMISSIONER
OF
THE SAPS, FS
N.O.
2
nd
Respondent
THE CHAIRPERSON: THE
FS GAMBLING
AND
LIQUOR AUTHORITY N.O.
3
rd
Respondent
LIEUTENANT-COLONEL
THINANE
N.O.
4
th
Respondent
THE
MAGISTRATE, SASOLBURG
N.O.
5
th
Respondent
JUDGMENT
ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
CORAM:
KRUGER, J
DELIVERED
ON:
24
APRIL 2014
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal against my judgment given
on 22 November 2013. As is the practice in this division
where the
parties agree, written submissions were made. The applicant’s
arguments were filed on 11 April 2014 and those of
the respondents on
22 April 2014.
[2]
In my judgment I held that the fact that the premises are described
as being in the Checkers Complex and not in the adjacent
Groenewoud
Complex did not make the warrant invalid. Mr Jagga, for the applicant
submits that a different court may come to a different
conclusion on
this point, and may hold that the shop’s physical location is
the overriding factor. Another point made by
Mr Jagga is that another
court may find that the warrant is overbroad.
[3]
The application is opposed by the first to fourth respondents, and Ms
Wright filed arguments on their behalf. She says the premises
were
described intelligibly and she points out that the applicant does not
allege that there is another business in Sasolburg known
as Game Net.
As to overbroadness, Ms Wright says the warrant was capable of being
understood by a reasonably well-informed person.
[3]
In my view there are reasonable prospects that another court may come
to a different conclusion. Leave to appeal should be granted
to the
full court of this division.
ORDER
1.
Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of this Division.
2.
Costs are costs in the appeal.
______________
A. KRUGER, J
On behalf of the
Applicant: Adv N. Jagga
Instructed
by:
Honey
& Partners
BLOEMFONTEIN
On behalf of the
Respondent: Adv G.M. Wright
Instructed
by:
State
Attorney
BLOEMFONTEIN
/sp