IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
In the matter between:
THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
and
IQBAL MEER SHARMA
NULANEINVESTMENTS204(PTY)LTD
ISLANDSITE INVESTMENTS 180 (PTY) LTD
(IN BUSINESS RESCUE)
KURT ROBERT KNOOP NO
JOHAN LOUIS KLOPPER NO
(fourth and fifth defendants cited in their capacities as
business rescue practitioners of the third defendant)
ISSAR GLOBAL LTD
ISSAR CAPITAL (PTY) LTD
TARINA PATEL-SHARMA
Not reportable
Case no: 2427/2021
APPLICANT
FIRST DEFENDANT
SECOND DEFENDANT
THIRD DEFENDANT
FOURTH DEFENDANT
FIFTH DEFENDANT
FIRST RESPONDENT
SECOND RESPONDENT
THIRD RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: NDPP v Sharma and Others (2427/2021) [2025] ZAFSHC 381 (28
November 2025)
Coram: Daffue J
Heard: 3 November 2025
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties' representatives by email and released to SAFLII. The date and time for hand
down is deemed to be 13h00 on 28 November 2025.
Summary: Two applications for leave to appeal - the one by the National Director of
Public Prosecutions, the applicant in the application for a restraint order, and the other by
2
the third defendant company and its business rescue practitioners - leave to appeal
granted to Supreme Court of Appeal to the applicant as well as the third to fifth
defendants.
3
ORDER
1 Leave to appeal is granted to the applicant in the main application, to wit the
National Director of Public Prosecutions, to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
against the orders and judgment of De la Rey AJ handed down on 16 September 2025.
2 Leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal to lslandsite
Investments 180 (Pty) Ltd (in business rescue) and its business rescue practitioners, cited
as third to fifth defendants in the main application, to appeal against the amended orders
1.3A(a) and (b) handed down by De la Rey AJ on 16 September 2025 and the amended
order of 30 September 2025.
3 Costs of both applications for leave to appeal shall be costs in the respective
appeals.
JUDGMENT
Daffue J
[1] De la Rey AJ confirmed and made final a provisional restraint order issued by
Naidoo J on 2 June 2021, after having made certain amendments to the provisional
restraint order. The order of 16 September 2025 was later amended which amendment
was communicated to the parties on 30 September 2025. The applicant in the main
application, the National Director of Public Prosecutions (the NDPP), seeks leave to
appeal the orders and judgment of De la Rey AJ to the Supreme Court of Appeal. She
inter a/ia relies on the fact that the proposed appeal would have a reasonable prospect of
success. Also, that there is a.compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, namely
that the question in issue is an important one which has not been directly addressed by
either the Supreme Court of Appeal or the Constitutional Court.
[2] A few days after the filing of the. NDPP's application for leave to appeal, lslandsite
Investments 180 (Pty) Ltd (in business rescue) (lslandsite) and its two business rescue
4
practitioners, cited as third to fifth defendants in the main application, also filed an
application for leave to appeal. They are of the view that the issues relied upon do not
require the attendance of the Supreme Court of Appeal and therefore seek leave to
appeal to the full bench of this Division.
[3] In the absence of De la Rey AJ whose acting stint has come to an end, these two
applications have been allocated to me. I received the parties' hea_ds of argument and
considered the oral arguments presented to me on 3 November 2025. I wish to reiterate
that I am mindful of the fact that I do not sit as a court of appeal on the judgment and
orders of De la Rey AJ and will try my best to deal with the matter as if I was the presiding
judge.
[4] The application was argued on the MS-Teams platform. When it was called,
noticed that Mr H Potgieter was also present in the meeting. I enquired about his
presence, whereupon he informed me that he was appearing for the first and second
defendants who also intended to file an application for leave to appeal. He was aware
that condonation would have to be sought for late filing. However, he made it clear that
his clients rely on the same arguments as the third to fifth defendants represented by
Messrs A Bham SC and LVR van Tonder and that they would abide by my judgment. For
the record, the first and second defendants' application for leave to appeal was forwarded
to my secretary during the MS-Teams meeting. Bearing in mind Mr Potgieter's
concession, it is accepted that his clients will not proceed with a separate application for
leave to appeal and in the process waste unnecessary time and judicial resources.
[5] The test for leave to appeal has recently been restated in Ramakatsa and others
v African National Congress and Another1 and I quote:
The test of reasonable prospects of success postulates a dispassionate decision based on the
facts and the law that a court of appeal could reasonably arrive at a conclusion different to that of
the trial court. In other words, the appellants in this matter need to convince this Court on proper
grounds that they have prospects of success on appeal. Those prospects of success must not be
remote , but there must exist a reasonable chance of succeeding . A sound rational basis for the
conclusion that there are prospects of success must be shown to exist.'
1 Ramakatsa and Others v African National Congress and Another[2021] ZASCA 31 para10.
5
[6] Mr G Budlender SC, who appeared with Ms K Kollapen on behalf of the NDPP,
emphasised that the money-laundering carried on by the defendants is self-evidently part
of the large lslandsite money-laundering scheme, to wit in round figures in the amount of
R522 million. It is common cause that an amount of R522 million flowed through the
lslandsite Absa Bank account between November 2011 to July 2012. Wallis JA, the scribe
of the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment in Knoop and Another NNO v Gupta (Tayob
lntervening),2 described so_me examples of the lslandsite scheme in paragraph 136 of the
judgment. He continued:
The image of a washing machine or spin dryer springs to mind when looking at these bank
statements, with money coming in from group companies and going out almost immediately to
other group companies in enormous quantities on virtually a daily basis.'3
[7] Mr Budlender pointed out that the Supreme Court of Appeal made the following
finding about money laundering in S v Thabethe and Others.4
'It is not necessary to analyse the evidence on each of these counts in detail. Prima facie the
evidence shows a carefully planned scheme, in which the respondents pursued a common
purpose to defraud the Department and launder the proceeds.'
In paragraph 56 the court continued and I paraphrase:
There is accordingly direct prima facie evidence that ... , Nulane (and its director, the fourth
respondent) ... are involved in the fraud on the Department ... and that the proceeds, derived
from that fraud, were laundered almost immediately after each payment by the Department to
Nulane, in which lslandsite and Ms Ragavan played a central role ... ' 5
[8] Mr Budlender criticised the finding that the 'movement' of R522 million was an
'incidental' finding. He submitted that the finding overlooked the question whether the
money-laundering of R522 million was a criminal act 'sufficiently related' to the alleged
offences of the defendants or more precisely, whether the criminal court may find that it
offences of the defendants or more precisely, whether the criminal court may find that it
was such.
2 Knoop and Another NNO v Gupta (Tayob Intervening) (2020] ZASCA 163; [2021] 1 All SA 726 (SCA);
2021 (3) SA 88 (SCA).
3 Ibid para 137.
4 S v Thabethe and Others (2025] ZASCA 88; (2025] 3 All SA 333 (SCA); 2025 (2) SACR 335 (SCA) para
55.
5 Ibid para 56.
6
[9) Mr Bham on behalf of the third to fifth defendants, and the business rescue
practitioners in particular, disputed the submissions by Mr Budlender. He contended that
the fraud allegedly committed involved in round terms R25 million and R19 million
respectively and that only these amounts can be restrained. On his version, the restraint
of any larger amount would amount to 'double counting'. I accept that the Supreme Court
of Appeal may find that the business rescue practitioners' submissions are inconsistent
with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in S v Shaik.6
[1 O] It is reasonably possible that the Supreme Court of Appeal would find that this
Court erred in not granting a restraint order in respect of R522 million. In doing so, there
is a reasonable possibility that the Supreme Court of Appeal may find that the Prevention
of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA) does not contemplate that money which is
the proceeds of crime may be released from restraint to assist the alleged offender,
lslandsite in casu, allowing it in the process breathing space whilst the business rescue
practitioners attempt to rehabilitate the company.
[11) Bearing in mind the circumstances, there is a reasonable possibility that the
Supreme Court of Appeal would find that the defendants have not placed sufficient
evidence before the court to displace the presumption in s 22(3) of POCA and that an
uncapped provisional restraint order would be appropriate as inter a/ia obtained in
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Kyriacou.7
[12) Having considered the parties' submissions, I am satisfied that there is a
reasonable prospect that the Supreme Court of Appeal would find that this court erred in
the following respects:
a. for failing to consider whether the criminal court may find that lslandsite's alleged
unlawful money-laundering of more than R522 million is criminal activity which is
'sufficiently related' to the offence with which the defendants are charged with specific
'sufficiently related' to the offence with which the defendants are charged with specific
reference to s 18(1 )(c) of POCA;
b. it failed to consider whether the criminal court may include the proceeds of the
money-laundering scheme in a confiscation order which it makes;
6 S v Shaik [2007] 2 All SA 150 (SCA); see also the judgment of National Director of Public Prosecuti ons v
Madhoe and Others [2024] ZAKZDHC 88; 2025 (1) SACR 377 (KZD).
7 National Director of Public Prosecutions v Kyriacou [2003] ZASCA 95; [2003] 4 All SA 153 (SCA); 2004
(1) SA 379 (SCA); 2003 (2) SACR 524 (SCA) paras 13-16.
7
c. it failed to consider whether the restraint order should include the proceeds of the
money-laundering, so that the criminal court would be able to decide whether they should
be confiscated and make an effective order in that regard.
[13] A finding that the NDPP's application for leave to appeal should be granted,
negates any prospects of success pertai_ning to the application for leave to appeal by the
third to fifth defendants. However, I am satisfied that it is in the interest of justice that
leave should be granted to them to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal to prevent a
multiplicity of appeals. If the NDPP's appeal is dismissed, the Supreme Court of Appeal
may find that the realisable property under restraint should be limited to R24 984 240
together with the CPI from November 2011 to date of the order in relation to the first and
second defendants and R19 070 934 together with CPI from November 2011 to date of
the order in relation to the defendants. Consequently, although contradictory in nature,
the two applications for leave to appeal should both be granted to be heard by the
Supreme Court of Appeal. The costs of the applications shall be costs in the appeals.
Order
[14] In the result, the following order is made:
1 Leave to appeal is granted to the applicant in the main application, to wit the
National Director of Public Prosecutions, to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
against the orders and judgment of De la Rey AJ handed down on 16 September 2025.
2 Leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal to lslandsite
<
Investments 180 (Pty) Ltd (in business rescue) and its business rescue practitioners, cited
as third to fifth defendants in the main application, to appeal against the amended orders
1.3A(a) and (b) handed down by De la Rey AJ on 16 September 2025 and the amended
order of 30 September 2025.
3 Costs of both applications for leave to appe
appeals.
f' JP DAFFUE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances
For the Applicant:
Instructed by:
For the first and second defendants:
Instructed by:
For the third to fifth defendants:
Instructed by:
G Budlender SC with K Kollapen
The State Attorney, Bloemfontein
H Potgieter
Forbay Attorneys, Pretoria
c/o Gcasamba Inc, Bloemfontein.
A Bham SC with LVR van Tonder
Smit Sewgoolam Inc, Johannesburg
c/o McIntyre Van Der Post, Bloemfontein
8