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
>>
2012
>>
[2012] ZAFSHC 134
|
|
Combined Private Investigations and Another v Rossouw and Others (448/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 134 (5 July 2012)
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case NO. 448/2012
In the application between:
COMBINED PRIVATE INVESTIGATIONS
…...........................
1
st
Applicant
DIRECTOR PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS:
FREE STATE
….......................................................................
2
nd
Applicant
and
AC ROSSOUW
….................................................................
1
st
Respondent
THE MINISTER OF POLICE
…...........................................
2
nd
Respondent
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE
…..........................................
3
rd
Respondent
THE STATION COMMISSIONER, SAPS,
VIRGINIA
…..........................................................................
4
th
Respondent
HEARD ON
:
10 MAY 2012
CORAM:
MURRAY, AJ
JUDGEMENT BY:
MURRAY, AJ
DELIVERED ON:
5 JULY 2012
_________________________________________________________
[1] This is an interlocutory application in which this
Court is asked to discharge or confirm the rule
nisi
which was
granted on an urgent basis on 3 February 2012 and which was extended
to 12 April 2012 and again to 10 May 2012 in order
to serve before
this Court together with the main application in case no 141/2012.
[2] The rule
nisi
was obtained to retain the
assets seized from the first respondent herein (the applicant in the
main application) on 5 December
2011 in the SAPS 13 store until the
main application had been finalised.
[3] In the main application the said first respondent
asked for the immediate return of the seized items. She based her
application
on allegations that the warrant of execution was invalid
and that the search and seizure were therefore unlawful and that she
was
therefore entitled to their return.
[4] Only the present applicant (the fourth respondent in
the main application) opposed her application for the return of the
said
items. Before the opposing papers could be filed, however, the
second respondent herein, the SAPS, decided that the search and
seizure had indeed been unlawful and informed the first respondent
that it intended to return the seized items to her.
[5] That prompted this urgent application to stay the
return of the seized items pending finalisation of the main
application. Only
the first and second respondents herein opposed the
urgent application and only regarding the costs orders asked against
them.
[6] This Court has found the warrant invalid and the
subsequent search and seizure unlawful. Since the same facts and the
same law
underly both these applications, I do not intend to repeat
the reasons for my findings which are dealt with fully in the main
application.
[7] Due to the order made in the main application,
namely that the seized items must be returned, it would serve no
purpose to confirm
the rule
nisi.
[8] In my view there is no reason for the costs not to
follow the outcome.
[9] WHEREFORE the following order is made:
The
rule
nisi
is discharged.
The first applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the
application.
__________________
H. MURRAY, AJ
On behalf of applicant: Adv. W.J. Groenewald Instructed
by:
EG Cooper Majiedt Inc BLOEMFONTEIN
On behalf of fourth respondent: Adv. P. Zietsman SC
Instructed by:
Naudes
BLOEMFONTEIN