SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this
document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Reportable
Case no: 1186/2025
In the matter between
THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS APPLICANT
and
McGINA PROPERTY TRUST FIRST RESPONDENT
MICHELLE ANTIA MPAMBANI SECOND RESPONDENT
ANTHONY MPAMBANI THIRD RESPONDENT
EMELDA NONZAKALISO MABUYA FOURTH RESPONDENT
THE VILLA CASTELLO RESIDENCE TRUST FIFTH RESPONDENT
SELLO JOSEPH RADEBE SIXTH RESPONDENT
SAB FAMILY TRUST SEVENTH RESPONDENT
In Re: Fixed property situated at:
Erf 7[...] Castello River Estate, Beverley, Sandton.
Erf 2[...] Situated At 1[...] K[...] S[...], Kosmos, Hartbeespoort.
Erf 4[...] Portion 1[...] V[...], Wildebeesthoek SH, Wonderboom.
Erf 4[...] Portion 1[...] V[...], Wildebeesthoek SH, Wonderboom.
Erf 2[...], Ridge Lane, City of Johannesburg, Randburg.
Erf 2[...] Portion 9, Unit 1[...], C[...] d[...] V[...] R[...] L[...] E[...], Ngwathe, Free State.
Silver Mercedes Benz G63 Motor Vehicle With Registration Number DB 9[…]
Neutral citation: National Director of Public Prosecutions v McGina Property Trust and
Others (1186/2025) [2026] ZAFSHC 105 (20 March 2026)
Coram: OPPERMAN J
Heard: 26 February 2026
2
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 16h00 on 20 March 2026.
Summary: Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 – forfeiture of assets –
whether assets constitute ‘proceeds of unlawful activities’ or ‘instrumentalities of an
offence’ – innocent owner defence – principles restated.
ORDER
1 An order is granted in terms of the provisions of s 50(1) of the Prevention of
Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA) declaring forfeit to the State:
1.1 Erf 2[...], situated at 1[...] K[...] S[...] , Kosmos, Hartbeespoort, with title deed
number T52808/2016, registered at Pretoria deeds office, and held in the name of
McGina Property Trust.
1.2 Erf 4[...], portion 1[...] V[...] JQ, Wildebeesthoek SH, Wonderboom, with title deed
number T80620/2016, registered at Pretoria deeds office, and held in the name of
McGina Property Trust.
1.3 Erf 4[...], portion 1[...] V[...] JQ, Wildebeesthoek SH, Wonderboom, with title deed
number T45789/2016, registered at Pretoria deeds office, and held in the name of
McGina Property Trust.
1.4 Erf 2[...], situated at 2[...] R[...] L[...], City of Johannesburg, Randburg, with title
deed number T30858/2017, registered at Pretoria deeds office, and held in the name of
McGina Property Trust (subject to the exclusion in para 3.2 below).
1.5 Erf 2[...], portion 9, Unit 1[...], C[...] d[...] V[...] R[...] L[...] E[...], Ngwathe, Parys,
Free State, sectional scheme title deed number ST13791/2016, registered in
Bloemfontein deeds office, and held in the name of McGina Property Trust.
1.6 Erf 7[...] Castello River Estate, Beverley, Sandton, with title deed number
T28245/2015, registered at Pretoria deeds office, and held in the name of Villa Castello
Residence Trust.
1.7 A silver Mercedes Benz G63 motor vehicle with registration number DB 9[… ], with
1.7 A silver Mercedes Benz G63 motor vehicle with registration number DB 9[… ], with
chassis number WDB[… ], engine number 157[… ] and registered in the name of the SAB
Family Trust. (the property).
2 This order shall be executed under the supervision and control of the curator bonis
Gerhard Geldenhuys (Geldenhuys) appointed as such in terms of s 42 of POCA in the
3
preservation application. Representatives of the applicant and ABSA Bank may
accompany the said Geldenhuys in order to represent the applicant’s and ABSA Bank’s
interest in the execution of this order. The property is presently subject to a preservation
of property order granted by this Court under the above case number dated 13 March
2025, which property is under the control of Geldenhuys.
3 The State may deal with the property as set hereunder:
3.1 Geldenhuys or a person authorised by him in writing shall sell the property listed in
paras 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 above and pay the proceeds of the sale into the
Criminal Asset Recovery Account established under s 63 of POCA, number 80303056
held at the South African Reserve Bank, Vermeulen Street, Pretoria.
3.2 Geldenhuys or a person authorised by him in writing shall sell the property listed in
para 1.4 above in consultation with ABSA Bank and pay ABSA Bank the outstanding
bond amount from the proceeds of the sale of the property listed in para 1.4 and any
remaining amount from the sale of this property, if any, must be paid into the Criminal
Asset Recovery Account established under s 63 of POCA, number 80303056 held at the
South African Reserve Bank, Vermeulen Street, Pretoria. Should the proceeds from the
sale of the property referred to in para 1.4 be insufficient to settle the full amount owing to
ABSA Bank, neither the applicant nor the curator bonis shall be liable for any shortfall.
3.3 Any person holding property subject to the preservation of property order shall
surrender forthwith such property into the custody of the curator bonis.
4 It is ordered that the forfeiture order be published in the Government Gazette
within 90 (ninety) days of the date of this order.
5 Any person whose interest in the property concerned is affected by the forfeiture
order, may within 20 (twenty) days after he or she has acquired knowledge of such order,
set the matter down for variation or rescission by the Court.
set the matter down for variation or rescission by the Court.
6 The said Geldenhuys or person authorised by him shall as soon as possible, but
not later than within a period of 90 (ninety) days of this order coming into effect, file a
report with the applicant on the manner in which he:
6.1 Completed the administration of the property mentioned above; and
6.2 complied with the terms of this order.
7 In terms of s 42(2) of POCA it is ordered that the fees of the curator bonis and all
disbursements be paid from the forfeited property.
8 No order is made as to costs.
4
JUDGMENT
Opperman J
Introduction
[1] This application is brought by the National Director of Public Prosecutions
(NDPP) in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA) for a
forfeiture order in respect of six immovable properties and one motor vehicle ( the
property).
[2] The properties are registered in the names of the McGina Property Trust, the
Villa Castello Residence Trust and the SAB Family Trust. The NDPP contends that the
property constitutes the proceeds of unlawful activities, alternatively the instrumentality
of money laundering offences and is accordingly liable to forfeiture to the State. The
property was previously made subject to a preservation of property order granted by this
Court on 13 March 2025. The order was published in the Government Gazette on 13
June 2025. The present application was issued on 22 August 2025, within 90 days of
such publication. Service was effected on all the respondents.
[3] At this juncture, it warrants mentioning that t his matter concerns , inter alia ,
money laundering. Kruger
1 explains that money laundering may be described as ‘ the
manipulation of illegally acquired wealth in order to obscure its true nature. ’ It entails
disguising the origins of money obtained through criminal activities so that the funds
appear to have been lawfully acquired. This is usually achieved through a single
transaction or a series of transactions designed to give the money a semblance of
legitimacy. In this manner, funds acquired through unlawful means are rendered
capable of being used in the legitimate economy.2
In Limine
[4] A point in limine was initially raised that the present application had been brought
out of time. The contention that the application had to be brought within 90 days of the
court order was agreed by counsel to be erroneous. At the commencement of the
hearing, counsel for the respondents indicated that the point was withdrawn.
hearing, counsel for the respondents indicated that the point was withdrawn.
1 A Kruger Organised Crime and Proceeds of Crime Law in South Africa 3 ed (2024).
2 Ibid 55.
5
[5] To conclude this issue, the Supreme Court of Appeal in National Director of
Public Prosecutions v Gcaba 3 (Gcaba) confirmed that the statutory regime requires the
NDPP merely to issue a forfeiture application out of court in respect of the property
concerned within 90 days. It is not required that the application be served on interested
parties within that period. This is principally because forfeiture proceedings are in rem ,
directed at the property itself, rather than in personam , against a particular respondent.
Accordingly, such proceedings commence upon the issuing of the application and not
upon service. Secondly the commencement of the 90- day period is not tied to the
service referred to in s 39(1) (a), but to the publication referred to in s 39(1) (b). The
preliminary objection is therefore without merit. The preservation order remains in force,
and the application is properly before this Court. In Gcaba, Henney AJA ruled that:
‘[32] In my view, mere issue and not service of the application within the 90 days would not
unduly infringe upon an individual’s rights. The person’s property rights, if any, are at best, only
limited, for the period of the duration of the preservation order, after judicial sanction, at the time
when the preservation order was granted. I therefore disagree with the finding in Levy that the
term ‘pending’ should be interpreted to include the issue and service of a forfeiture application
on account that ‘. . . a statute makes serious inroads on the rights of an individual . . . ’. There
are sufficient safeguards in POCA to prevent an abuse of process and to protect the rights of
affected persons, after the issue of the application, whilst the proceedings are pending and
unduly delayed, and the preservation order is still in force.’
The Defences
[6] The defence advanced by the opposing respondents is that the criminal
proceedings presently pending against some respondents render this application
incompetent. There is also
incompetent. There is also
a general denial of wrongdoing.
Parties and Service
[7] Only the first, second, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents filed affidavits
opposing the forfeiture order sought. The first respondent, the McGina Property Trust,
acts through its trustees: Michelle Anita Mpambani N.O. (second respondent), Anthony
Mpambani N.O. (third respondent), and Willem Pieter Esterhuizen N.O., the latter acting
on behalf of DLR Fiduciary SA (Pty) Ltd.
3 National Director of Public Prosecutions v Gcaba (488/2024) [2026] ZASCA 4 (14 January 2026) paras
28-39.
6
[8] Service of the preservation application and supporting papers was e ffected on
the trustees and other interested parties at the addresses reflected in the founding
papers. Anthony Mpambani N.O. and Emelda Nonzaliseko Mabuya (fourth respondent),
the executor in the estate of Mpambani, filed affidavits in which they dissociated
themselves from the property.
[9] In terms of para 12.1 of the preservation order, service was also required on the
Villa Castello Residence Trust (fifth respondent), represented by Roberto Jorge
Mendonca Velosa (representing iProtect Trustees (Pty) Ltd) and Sello Joseph Radebe
(sixth respondent). Service was effected on both representatives.
[10] Service was further required on the SAB Family Trust (seventh respondent),
likewise represented by Roberto Jorge Mendonca Velosa and Sello Joseph Radebe. It
was effected in the same manner.
[11] Service was also effected on ABSA Bank Ltd, which holds a mortgage bond over
the property. The bank’s interest in the property is therefore safeguarded. Counsel
holding a watching brief attended the hearing on 26 February 2026 on behalf of ABSA
Bank Ltd.
The Property
[12] The property sought to be forfeited comprises:
a. Erf 2[...], 1[...] K[...] S[...], Kosmos, Hartbeespoort held in the name of McGina
Property Trust.
b. Erf 4[...], Portion 1[...] V[...] JQ, Wildebeesthoek S H, Wonderboom held in the
name of McGina Property Trust.
c. Erf 4[...], Portion 1[...] V[...] JQ, Wildebeesthoek SH, Wonderboom McGina, held in
the name of McGina Property Trust.
d. Erf 2[...], 2[...] R[...] L[...], Randburg, held in the name of McGina Property Trust.
e. Erf 2[...], Portion 9, Unit 1[...], C[...] d[...] V[...] R[...] L[...] E[...], Ngwathe, Free State
held in the name of McGina Property Trust.
7
f. Erf 7[...] Castello River Estate, Beverley, Sandton held in the name of Villa
Castello Residence Trust.
g. A silver Mercedes Benz G63 motor vehicle, registration number DB 9 […]
registered in the name of the SAB Family Trust.
The History and the Money Flow
[13] The application arises from the well -publicised asbestos roofing tender awarded
by the Free State Department of Human Settlements (FSDHS) to a joint venture styled
Diamond Hill Trading 71 / Blackhead Consulting JV (the JV). It is common cause that
approximately R230 million was paid by FSDHS to the JV between December 2014 and
August 2016. The NDPP alleges that the award of the contract was irregular and
unlawful, that the JV had neither the capacity nor the intention to perform the work, and
that the payments constituted the proceeds of fraud, corruption, contraventions of
procurement legislation, and money laundering.
[14] The unlawful procurement and payment process has been the subject of findings
by both the Auditor -General and the Public Protector. The evidence placed before this
Court demonstrates that substantial portions of the R230 million were transferred,
almost immediately after receipt, to entities controlled by or associated with the
principals of the JV and their subcontractors, including 605 Consulting (Pty) Ltd and
Mastertrade 232 (Pty) Ltd. From those entities, funds were further channeled through a
series of transactions into trusts connected to the role players, which in turn acquired
the properties now sought to be forfeited.
[15] The evidence demonstrates that funds originating from FSDHS were used,
directly or indirectly, to purchase the Vissershoek properties, the Kosmos property , the
Randburg property, the Cote de Val property , the Castello River Estate property, and
the Mercedes Benz G63.
[16] The acquisitions occurred within a relatively short period, largely on a cash basis,
and are not supported by evidence of legitimate commercial income sufficient to explain
and are not supported by evidence of legitimate commercial income sufficient to explain
them. The respondents have not provided documentary proof or any other proof
demonstrating an independent lawful source for the funds used to acquire the property.
8
The Legal Framework
[17] This is an application in terms of s s 48 and 50 of POCA. The law
comprehensively reflected in the case of The National Director of Public Prosecutions v
Maphosa4 (Maphosa) finds application here.
[18] In proceedings under Chapter VI of the POCA, the focus of the enquiry is the
property itself rather than the culpability of the owner or possessor. Forfeiture
proceedings are civil in nature and are determined in accordance with the rules of
evidence applicable to civil proceedings.
[19] A forfeiture order may be granted even in the absence of a criminal prosecution,
and the outcome of any related criminal proceedings is generally not decisive. As
confirmed by the Constitutional Court in Prophet v National Director of Public
Prosecutions,
5 a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for forfeiture under Chapter VI
of POCA.6
[20] In terms of ss 48(1) and 50(1) of POCA, this Court must grant a forfeiture order if
it is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the property concerned is either an
instrumentality of a Schedule 1 offence or the proceeds of unlawful activities. The State
is therefore required to establish, on a civil standard of proof, that unlawful activities
occurred and that the property was derived, received or retained in connection with
such activities.
[21] POCA defines ‘proceeds of unlawful activities ’ as property derived, directly or
indirectly, from unlawful conduct. In National Director of Public Prosecutions v RO Cook
Properties (Pty) Ltd,
7 the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the definition requires a
consequential relationship between unlawful activity and the property.
[22] An ‘instrumentality of an offence’ refers to property concerned in the commission
of an offence. The courts have held that the link between the property and the offence
4 The National Director of Public Prosecutions v Simba David Maphosa (619/2024) [2026] ZAFSHC 49 (9
February 2026) (Maphosa) paras 25-34.
February 2026) (Maphosa) paras 25-34.
5 Prophet v National Director of Public Prosecutions (CCT56/05) [2006] ZACC 17; 2007 (2) BCLR 140
(CC); 2006 (2) SACR 525 (CC) ; 2007 (6) SA 169 (CC) (29 September 2006).
6 Ibid para 58.
7 National Director of Public Prosecutions v R O Cook Properties (Pty) Ltd (260/03) [2004] ZASCA 36 (13
May 2004).
9
must be functional and reasonably direct, meaning that the property must facilitate or
make possible the commission of the offence, and must be instrumental rather than
merely incidental to it.8
[23] As indicated, in the present matter, the applicant contends that the property was
acquired using funds unlawfully diverted from the FSDHS through a scheme involving
fraud, theft, contraventions of the Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999, corruption
and money laundering. The funds were allegedly laundered and utilised to purchase the
property.
[24] The courts have further recognised that proceeds of crime may be laundered and
converted into other assets. As it was held by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bobroff v
National Director of Public Prosecutions ,
9 property representing such converted
proceeds may still constitute proceeds of unlawful activities for purposes of POCA.
[25] On the applicant’s version, the property was acquired and utilised in a manner
that facilitated the alleged money -laundering scheme and is therefore liable to forfeiture
as both the proceeds of unlawful activities and an instrumentality of an offence. The
NDPP contends that, when the applicable case law is applied to the facts, a case for
forfeiture has been established. However, this does not conclude the enquiry. In
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mohamed, NO and Others 10 the
Constitutional Court confirmed that Chapter 6 of POCA focuses primarily on the
property concerned, rather than on the wrongdoing of the owner or possessor. The
Court further recognised that, at the forfeiture stage, an owner may raise the ‘ innocent
owner’ defence by demonstrating that the property was acquired lawfully and for value,
and that he or she neither knew nor had reasonable grounds to suspect that the
property constituted the proceeds of crime or was an instrumentality of an offence.11
[26] A respondent bears an evidentiary burden to show that the proceeds used to
[26] A respondent bears an evidentiary burden to show that the proceeds used to
8 National Director of Public Prosecutions v Hausiku, unreported judgment of the Northern Cape
Provincial Division, case number 2330/2021, delivered 10 February 2023, paras 12 and 13.
9 Bobroff and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions (194/20) [2021] ZASCA 56; [2021] 3 All
SA 1 (SCA); 2021 (2) SACR 53 (SCA) (3 May 2021).
10 National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another v Mohamed NO and Others (CCT13/02) [2002]
ZACC 9; 2002 (9) BCLR 970 (CC); 2002 (4) SA 843 (CC); 2002 (2) SACR 196 (CC) (12 June 2002) para
18.
11 Ibid para 19.
10
acquire the property were derived from a legitimate source. Section 52 of POCA places
an evidentiary burden on a party seeking to exclude an interest from forfeiture to prove
that such interest was lawfully acquired. Accordingly, respondents must support their
allegations with evidence if their version is to be accepted as tenable. This is what the
legislation decrees:
'(1)The High Court may, on application-
(a) under section 48(3); or
(b) by a person referred to in section 49(1), and when it makes a forfeiture order, make an order
excluding certain interests in property which is subject to the order, from the operation thereof.
(2) The High Court may make an order under subsection (1), in relation to the forfeiture of the
proceeds of unlawful activities, if it finds on a balance of probabilities that the applicant for the
order-
(a) had acquired the interest concerned legally and for a consideration, the value of which is not
significantly less than the value of that interest; and
(b) . . .’
12
[27] In the present matter, the opposing respondents largely rely on technical
objections and bald denials of any unlawfulness in relation to the asbestos tender.
Assertions are made that the contractual work was performed, but no supporting
documentation has been produced. In National Director of Public Prosecutions v
Moyane
13 the Supreme Court of Appeal held that where a respondent fails to raise a
real, genuine and bona fide dispute of fact regarding the source of funds used to
acquire property, and where no documentary proof such as invoices, contracts or
financial records is produced to demonstrate a legitimate source of funds, the ‘ innocent
owner’ defence cannot succeed.
[28] Similarly, the respondents in this matter rely on bare assertions in the face of
extensive evidence presented by the NDPP. In Maphosa it was emphasised that the
failure to produce proof, considered against the totality of the evidence, justifies the
failure to produce proof, considered against the totality of the evidence, justifies the
drawing of a negative inference against the respondent.
‘[34] This being opposed motion procedure, the trite principles applicable to the adjudication of
12 Maphosa fn 4 para 28.
13 National Director of Public Prosecutions v Moyane (474/2021) [2022] ZASCA 79 (31 May 2022) paras
29-30.
11
factual disputes has been set out in Plascon -Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd .
In order to establish whether a real, genuine and bona fide dispute of fact exists, the following
dictum in Wightman t/a JW Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another (Wightman) must be
adhered to by respondents:
“A real, genuine and bona fide dispute of fact can exist only where the court is satisfied that the
party who purports to raise the dispute has in his affidavit seriously and unambiguously
addressed the fact said to be disputed. There will of course be instances where a bare denial
meets the requirement because there is no other way open to the disputing party and nothing
more can therefore be expected of him. But even that may not be sufficient if the fact averred lies
purely within the knowledge of the av erring party and no basis is laid for disputing the veracity or
accuracy of the averment. When the facts averred are such that the disputing party must
necessarily possess knowledge of them and be able to provide an answer (or countervailing
evidence) if they be not true or accurate but, instead of doing so, rests his case on a bare or
ambiguous denial the court will generally have difficulty in finding that the test is satisfied. I say
“generally” because factual averments seldom stand apart from a broader matrix of
circumstances, all of which needs to be borne in mind when arriving at a decision. A litigant may
not necessarily recognise or understand the nuances of a bare or general denial as against a real
attempt to grapple with all relevant factual allegations made by the other party. But when he signs
the answering affidavit, he commits himself to its contents, inadequate as they may be, and will
only be permitted in exceptional circ umstances to disavow them. There is thus a serious duty
imposed upon a legal adviser who settles an answering affidavit to ascertain and engage with
imposed upon a legal adviser who settles an answering affidavit to ascertain and engage with
facta which his client disputes and to reflect such disputes fully and accurately in the answering
affidavit. If that does not happen it should come as no surprise that the court takes a robust view
of the matter.”'
[29] The affidavits filed by Emelda Mbuya and Anthony Mpambani do not advance the
‘innocent owner ’ defence. Ms Mbuya’s statement that she previously purchased
separate property with the late Mr Mpambani is irrelevant to the present proceedings, as
that property is not the subject of this application. Importantly, she confirms that she
holds no interest in the McGina Property Trust or in the property sought to be forfeited,
although she acts as executrix of the estate of the late Mr Mpambani. Mr Anthony
Mpambani, in turn, states that he has no knowledge of the dealings of the McGina
Property Trust and was appointed as a trustee by his son without involvement in the
management of the property.
12
Conclusion
[30] The opposing respondents rely primarily on:
a. Technical objections relating to the preservation order.14
b. A general denial of wrongdoing; and
c. the existence of pending criminal proceedings.
[31] It is settled law that civil forfeiture proceedings may proceed independently of
criminal prosecution. The outcome of criminal proceedings is not a prerequisite to
forfeiture. The respondents have not meaningfully engaged with the detailed financial
evidence presented by the NDPP. Bald denials in the face of comprehensive banking
analyses do not create genuine disputes of fact.
[32] The so- called ‘innocent owner ’ defence requires proof that the property was
acquired legally and for value, and that the owner neither knew nor had reasonable
grounds to suspect that it constituted the proceeds of crime. No such case has been
made out on the evidence.
[33] On a conspectus of the evidence, this Court is satisfied that:
a. Unlawful activities, including fraud, corruption and money laundering, were
committed in relation to the asbestos tender.
b. Substantial funds paid by FSDHS were unlawfully siphoned and laundered.
c. The property was derived, directly or indirectly, from those funds.
d. The trusts functioned as conduits to hold and disguise the proceeds.
e. The property represents the proceeds of unlawful activities as defined in POCA.
[34] The NDPP has discharged the onus resting upon it on a balance of probabilities.
In terms of s 50(1) of POCA, once the court is so satisfied, it must grant the forfeiture
order, subject to s 52. No basis for exclusion has been established.
Order
[35] The application succeeds. It is ordered that:
14 See paras 4-5 above.
13
1 An order is granted in terms of the provisions of s 50(1) of the Prevention of
Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA) declaring forfeit to the State:
1.1 Erf 2[...], situated at 1[...] K[...] S[...] , Kosmos, Hartbeespoort, with title deed
number T52808/2016, registered at Pretoria deeds office, and held in the name of
McGina Property Trust.
1.2 Erf 4[...], portion 1[...] V[...] JQ, Wildebeesthoek SH, Wonderboom, with title deed
number T80620/2016, registered at Pretoria deeds office, and held in the name of
McGina Property Trust.
1.3 Erf 4[...], portion 1[...] V[...] JQ, Wildebeesthoek SH, Wonderboom, with title deed
number T45789/2016, registered at Pretoria deeds office, and held in the name of
McGina Property Trust.
1.4 Erf 2[...], situated at 2[...] R[...] L[...], City of Johannesburg, Randburg, with title
deed number T30858/2017, registered at Pretoria deeds office, and held in the name of
McGina Property Trust (subject to the exclusion in para 3.2 below).
1.5 Erf 2[...], portion 9, Unit 1[...], C[...] d[...] V[...] R[...] L[...] E[...], Ngwathe, Parys,
Free State, sectional scheme title deed number ST13791/2016, registered in
Bloemfontein deeds office, and held in the name of McGina Property Trust.
1.6 Erf 7[...] Castello River Estate, Beverley, Sandton, with title deed number
T28245/2015, registered at Pretoria deeds office, and held in the name of Villa Castello
Residence Trust.
1.7 A silver Mercedes Benz G63 motor vehicle with registration number DB 9[… ], with
chassis number WDB[… ], engine number 157[… ] and registered in the name of the SAB
Family Trust. (the property).
2 This order shall be executed under the supervision and control of the curator bonis
Gerhard Geldenhuys (Geldenhuys) appointed as such in terms of s 42 of POCA in the
preservation application. Representatives of the applicant and ABSA Bank may
accompany the said Geldenhuys in order to represent the applicant’s and ABSA Bank’s
accompany the said Geldenhuys in order to represent the applicant’s and ABSA Bank’s
interest in the execution of this order. The property is presently subject to a preservation
of property order granted by this Court under the above case number dated 13 March
2025, which property is under the control of Geldenhuys.
3 The State may deal with the property as set hereunder:
3.1 Geldenhuys or a person authorised by him in writing shall sell the property listed in
paras 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 above and pay the proceeds of the sale into the
14
Criminal Asset Recovery Account established under s 63 of POCA, number 80303056
held at the South African Reserve Bank, Vermeulen Street, Pretoria.
3.2 Geldenhuys or a person authorised by him in writing shall sell the property listed in
para 1.4 above in consultation with ABSA Bank and pay ABSA Bank the outstanding
bond amount from the proceeds of the sale of the property listed in para 1.4 and any
remaining amount from the sale of this property, if any, must be paid into the Criminal
Asset Recovery Account established under s 63 of POCA, number 80303056 held at the
South African Reserve Bank, Vermeulen Street, Pretoria. Should the proceeds from the
sale of the property referred to in para 1.4 be insufficient to settle the full amount owing to
ABSA Bank, neither the applicant nor the curator bonis shall be liable for any shortfall.
3.3 Any person holding property subject to the preservation of property order shall
surrender forthwith such property into the custody of the curator bonis.
4 It is ordered that the forfeiture order be published in the Government Gazette
within 90 (ninety) days of the date of this order.
5 Any person whose interest in the property concerned is affected by the forfeiture
order, may within 20 (twenty) days after he or she has acquired knowledge of such order,
set the matter down for variation or rescission by the Court.
6 The said Geldenhuys or person authorised by him shall as soon as possible, but
not later than within a period of 90 (ninety) days of this order coming into effect, file a
report with the applicant on the manner in which he:
6.1 Completed the administration of the property mentioned above; and
6.2 complied with the terms of this order.
7 In terms of s 42(2) of POCA it is ordered that the fees of the curator bonis and all
disbursements be paid from the forfeited property.
8 No order is made as to costs.
_______________________
M OPPERMAN
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances
15
For the applicant: NA Cassim SC
S Freese
Instructed by: The State Attorney, Free State,
Bloemfontein
For the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th and 7th respondents: WT Rambau
Instructed by: Rambau, Madzwara and Chauke Inc.
Kempton Park
c/o Mamello Makhetha/OMM Attorneys
Bloemfontein