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
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO : 2024-058935
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 12/5/2026
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:
ANGEL ERROL RAMPHELE First Applicant
Identity Number : 6[...]
MARIA ROSA DA ROCHA BARROS Second Applicant
Identity Number: 6[...]
and
THE MINISTER OF POLICE First Respondent
THE NATIONAL HEAD OF THE DIRECTORATE Second Respondent
FOR PRIORITY CRIME INVESTIGATION
THE PROVINCIAL HEAD OF THE DIRECTORATE Third Respondent
FOR PRIORITY CRIME INVESTIGATION, GAUTENG
CAPTAIN MANTSAE PAULINA MAGAGANE Fourth Respondent
Persal No. 7176709-6
LIEUTENANT COLONEL KS NKOSI Fifth Respondent
Persal No. 0925545-1
JUDGMENT
A. INTRODUCTION
BOTES, AJ
1. The First and Second Applicants1 apply for an order in the following terms:
1. The search and seizure Warrant (Section 21 read with Section 20 and
Chapter 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977) signed by Magistrate AME
Oosthuizen on 1O April 2024 is set aside.
2. The search Warrant in terms of Section 29(1)(a) of the Cybercrimes
Act, Act 19 of 2020 signed by Magistrate AME Oosthuizen on 1O April 2024
is set aside.
3. The Respondents are ordered to return to the Second Applicant all
the items seized by the Respondents from the Second Applicant as listed
and described in the List of Seized Exhibits Sheets within 3 days from the
date of the order.
4. The search and seizure Warrant (Section 21 read with Section 20 and
Chapter 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977) signed by Magistrate M
Louis on 10 April 2024 is set aside.
1 Hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Applicants".
5. The search Warrant in terms of Section 29(1)(a) of the Cybercrimes
Act, Act 19 of 2020 signed by Magistrate M Louis on 10 April 2024 is set
aside.
6. The Respondents are ordered to return to the First Applicant all the
items seized by the Respondents from the First Applicant as listed and
described in the List of Seized Exhibits Sheets within 3 days from the date
of the order.
7. The Respondents pay costs on an attorney and client scale on Scale
A2.
2. The Respondents instructed the State Attorney to represent them in this
application. The Respondents filed and delivered their Notice of Intention to Oppose this
application on 12 June 2024. The Respondents were dutybound and obliged to file and
deliver their Answering Affidavit on or before 4 July 20243.
3. Respondents eventually filed and delivered their Answering Affidavit on 31 July
2024.
4. The following aspects are, on the papers, in dispute:
4.1 Condonation for the late filing of the Respondents' Answering Affidavit;
4.2 Non-joinder of the magistrates who issued the Search and Seizure
Warrants4; and
2 See: The Notice of Motion dated 28 May 2024.
3 Monday, 17 June 2024 was a public holiday.
4 Magistrate AME Oosthuizen and Magistrate M Louis.
4.3 Does the Search and Seizure Warrants issued on 1O April 2024 comply
with the applicable statutory provisions?
5. The Respondents submit that this application is ill -conceived and without merit
and that the relief sought by the Applicants are nothing but an attempt to frustrate the
meritorious criminal investigation5.
6. The Respondents furthermore submit that the issuing of the search Warrants and
the seizure of articles consequent thereupon is a vital, indeed necessary, element in the
effective combatting of crime6.
7. The Respondents furthermore submit that the Applicants have failed to make out
a proper case for :
7.1 The setting aside of the Search and Seizure Warrants authorized in terms
of Section 20 read with Section 21 and Chapter 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act,
No. 51 of 19777 and the Cybercrimes Act, No. 19 of 20208·and
7.2 The return of the items seized in terms of the search Warrants authorized
in terms of Section 29(1)(a) of the Cybercrimes Act9.
8. The Respondents therefore conclude that the Applicants are grasping at straws
in a desperate attempt to undermine the significance of the role played by Search and
Seizure Warrants in the fight against crime and corruption, which conduct this Court
should not allow10.
5 See : Paragraph 143 of the Answering Affidavit.
6 See: Paragraph 144 of the Answering Affidavit.
7 Hereinafter referred to as "the Criminal Procedure Act".
8 Hereinafter referred to as "the Cybercrimes Act".
9 See : Paragraphs 145 and 146 of the Answering Affidavit.
10 See: Paragraph 147 of the Answering Affidavit.
B. CONDONATION OF THE LATE FILING OF THE RESPONDENTS'
ANSWERING AFFIDAVIT
9. The Respondents' apply for condonation for the late filing of their Answering
Affidavit11.
10. Condonation is not to be had merely for the asking and is by no means a mere
formality12.
10.1 The Respondents are required to furnish a full, detailed and accurate
account of the causes of the delay and their effects so as to enable this Court to
understand clearly the reasons and to assess the responsibility.
10.2 If the non-compliance is time-related, the date, duration and extent of any
obstacle on which the Respondents placed reliance on must be spelled out13.
11. The overriding consideration is that the matter rests in the judicial discretion of
this Court, to be exercised with regard to all the circumstances of the case14.
12. It is well-settled that, in considering Applications for Condonation, this Court has
a discretion, to be exercised judicially upon a consideration of all the facts, and that in
essence it is a question of fairness to both sides. In this enquiry, relevant considerations
may include the degree of non -compliance with the rules, the explanation therefor, the
prospects of success, the importance of the case, the interest in the finality of the
matter, the convenience of the Court and the avoidance of unnecessary delay in the
administration of justice15.
11 See : Paragraph 5 of the Answering Affidavit.
12 Rheeders v Jacobz 1942 AD 395.
13 See: Byron v Duke Incorporated 2002 (5) SA 483 (SCA).
14 See: Melane v Santam Insurance Co. Ltd 1962 (4) 531 (AD).
15 See: United Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd v Hills 1976 (1) SA 717 (A) at 720E-G.
13. The aforementioned factors are not individually decisive but are interrelated and
must be weighed one against the other. Thus a slight delay and a good explanation may
help to compensate for prospects of success which are not strong.
14. The Constitutional Court confirmed the aforementioned principle as follows :
"An Applicant for condonation must give a full explanation for the delay. In
addition, the explanation must cover the entire period of the delay. And,
what is more, the explanation given must be reasonable."16
15. The Respondents address the:
15.1 explanation of the delay;
15.2 degree of lateness;
15.3 prejudice; and
15.4 prospects of success,
comprehensively in the Affidavit in support of Condonation.
16. In the premises I am satisfied that the Respondents have made out a proper
case for condonation for the late filing of their Answering Affidavit.
C. NON-JOINDER OF THE MAGISTRATES CONCERNED: MAGISTRATE AME
OOSTHUIZEN AND MAGISTRATE M LOUIS
17. The Respondents submit that :
16 See : Van Wyk v Unitas Hospital 2008 (2) SA 472 (CC) at para 22.
17.1 The object of consideration in this matter is whether the Search and
Seizure Warrants issued by Magistrate AME Oosthuizen and Magistrate M Louis
were lawfully issued and whether they are valid17;
17.2 The Applicants seek to set aside the Search and Seizure Warrants issued
by the magistrates and for all the items seized by the Respondents from the
Applicants to be returned18;
17.3 The Applicants, inter alia , aver in the application that both the Warrants
are invalid because the magistrates did not have the authority and jurisdiction to
issue the said Warrants19;
17.4 The Applicants allege that the Warrants are invalid because the Warrants
do not satisfy the requirement that both magistrates satisfied themselves that the
Affidavit deposed to by the Fourth Respondent in support of the Application for
the Search and Seizure Warrants contains insufficient information on the
existence of the jurisdictional facts20 and
17.5 As the decision that the Applicants seek to review and set aside was made
by the magistrates, the magistrates should have been joined in the
proceedings21.
18. The Applicants submit that they do not seek to review the decisions of the
magistrates who signed the Warrants on the grounds based on the absence of
jurisdictional facts. If this was indeed the Applicants' intention, the Applicants would
have lodged their application in terms of the provisions of Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules
of this Court.
17 See : Paragraph 9 of the Answering Affidavit.
18 See : Paragraph 10 of the Answering Affidavit.
19 See : Paragraph 11 of the Answering Affidavit.
20 See : Paragraph 12 of the Answering Affidavit.
21 See : Paragraph 13 of the Answering Affidavit.
19. The Applicants therefore attack the validity of the Warrants as worded in the body
thereof and for want of compliance with the applicable statutory provisions and not in
the manner how it was issued. The Applicants therefore do not rely on the provisions of
Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of this Court22.
20. Non-joinder is the failure of a Plaintiff to join a particular Defendant with another
whom he is suing, in circumstances in which the law requires that both should be sued
together, or the failure by a Plaintiff to join himself as co -plaintiff another person whom
the law requires should be jointed when suing a particular Defendant or Defendants.
21. The test is whether or not a party has a "direct and substantial interest" in the
subject matter of the action, that is, a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation
which may be affected prejudicially by the Judgment of the Court23.
22. This view of what constitutes a direct and substantial interest has been referred
to and adopted in a number of subsequent decisions24.
23. A mere financial interest is an indirect interest and may not require joinder of a
person having such interest25.
24. The mere fact that a party may have an interest in the outcome of the litigation
does not Warrant a Plea of Non-Joinder26.
25. The rule is that any person is a necessary party and should be joined if such a
person has a direct and substantial interest in any Order the Court might make, or if
22 See : Paragraph 5 of the Applicants' Heads of Argument.
23 See: Henri Viljoen (Pty) Ltd v Awerbuch Bros. 1953 (2) SA 151 (O) at 168-170.
24 See: Erasmus, Superior Court Practice, 2nd Ed. (Vol2) at D1-124.
25 See : Hartland lmplemente (Edms) Bpk v Enal Eiendomme BK 2002 (3) SA 653 (NC) at 663E-H.
26 See: Judicial Service Commission v Cape Bar Council 2013 (1) SA 170 (SCA) at 176I-177A.
such an Order cannot be sustained or carried into effect without prejudicing that party,
unless the Court is satisfied that he has waived his right to be joined27.
26. The Full Court of this Court has held that the rule is not a mechanical or technical
one which "must be ritualistically applied, regardless of the circumstances of the case28.
27. The Applicants do not apply for an Order in terms of which the Search and
Seizure Warrants issued by Magistrates AME Oosthuizen and M Louis on 10 April 2024
should be reviewed and set aside. The relief which the Applicants apply for in this
application pivots on the content of the Search and Seizure Warrants and the absence
of Annexure A thereto29.
28. It is therefore evident that Magistrates AME Oosthuizen and M Louis have no
"direct and substantial interest" in the relief which the Applicants apply for.
D. DOES THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANTS COMPLY WITH THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS?
29. The Applicants rely on the following grounds for the setting aside of the Search
and Seizure Warrants :
29.1 For a Warrant to be valid, the Warrant must in a reasonable intelligible
manner describe or specify inter alia :
29.1.1 the article to be searched for and seized with sufficient particularity;
29.1.2 the terms of the Warrant must be neither vague nor overboard;
27 See: Kethel v Kethel's Estate 1949 (3) SA 598 (A) at 610.
28 See: Wholesale Provision Supplies CC v Exim International CC 1995 (1) SA 150 (T) at 158D-E.
29 See : Paragraph 8.2 of the Founding Affidavit.
29.1.3 be reasonably intelligible to both the searcher and the searched
person;
29.1.4 the offence which triggered the criminal investigation;
29.1.5 the person issuing the Warrant must have authority and jurisdiction;
and
29.1.6 the person authorizing the Warrant must satisfy himself / herself
that the Affidavit of the police official contains sufficient information on the
existence of the jurisdictional facts.
29.2 The absence of Annexure A to the Search and Seizure Warrants renders
both the Warrants invalid because the Warrants do not meet the requirement that
the article to be searched for and seized must be described with sufficient
particularity;
29.3 The Search and Seizure Warrants also contain no reference to an Affidavit
of a police official. The absence of such a reference renders both Warrants
invalid because the Warrants do not meet the requirement that both magistrates
satisfied themselves that the Affidavit of the police official contains sufficient
information on the existence of the jurisdictional facts;
29.4 Both Search and Seizure Warrants in the body thereof clearly states that
the articles that may be seized are documents as per Annexure A. Annexure A
did not form part of the Search and Seizure Warrants that were presented to the
Applicants on 18 April 2024 and on 19 April 2024 respectively;
29.5 Instead of Annexure A, a document with the heading "Annexure F :
Articles" was annexed to both Search and Seizure Warrants. In terms of this
Annexure F the articles described therein covered physical or paper documents
from 2013 to date "as intended in Section 29 read with Section 1 and 28 of the
Cybercrimes Act read with Section 20(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act;
29.6 Section 29(1)(a) of the Cybercrimes Act states, inter alia , that an article
can only be searched for, accessed or seized by virtue of a Search Warrant.
Section 1 of the Cybercrimes Act defines "article" as data; computer program;
data storage medium; or computer system;
29.7 Annexure F that is annexed to both Search and Seizure Warrants refers to
articles that do not fall within the ambit of the definition of articles that can be
seized in terms of Section 29 of the Cybercrimes Act;
29.8 The wording of Annexure F that is annexed to both Search and Seizure
Warrants, renders the terms of the Warrants vague and unintelligible to both the
searcher and the searched person because the Cybercrimes Act does not apply
to physical or paper documents;
29.9 The relevant sections of the Cybercrimes Act only came into operation on
1 December 2021. The magistrates 30 that authorized the Search and Seizure
Warrants did not have the authority and jurisdiction to authorize the seizure of the
articles listed for "the period 2013 to 30 November 2021"; and
29.10 The Search and Seizure Warrant that was presented to the Second
Applicant is vague and unintelligible because the Warrant was given to
Magistrate Oosthuizen on 19 April 2024, however Magistrate Oosthuizen signed
the Search and Seizure Warrant on 10 April 202431.
30 See: Footnote 4 supra.
31 See : Paragraph 8 of the Founding Affidavit.
30. The Applicants therefore submit that both Search Warrants are invalid because
the offence is not sufficiently described and the magistrates did not have the authority
and jurisdiction to issue the Warrants because the Cybercrimes Act is not applicable32.
31. The Respondents join issue with the Applicants insofar as the validity or
enforceability of the Warrants are concerned. The Fourth Respondent deposed to the
Respondents' Answering Affidavit in which the following material and important aspects
are addressed :
31.1 The Search and Seizure Warrants issued by the magistrates were lawfully
issued and they are valid, as it complied with the requirements of Sections 20
and 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as well as Section 29 of the Cybercrimes
Act;
31.2 Search and Seizure Warrants are a substantive weapon in the armoury of
the State and the Court should resist the Applicants' attempt to set aside the
Warrants on purely technical grounds, as there was no abuse of power or gross
violation of the Applicants' rights;
31.3 The Applications for the Search and Seizure Warrants were triggered by
an investigation into offences committed or suspected to have been committed
from June 2013 to date involving the South African Army Foundation 33. The
Applicants are employed by the SAAF and they (the Applicants) are the subject
of a criminal investigation;
31.4 The criminal investigation follows a report by the Financial Intelligence
Centre which revealed that the Applicants are reasonably suspected to be
involved in the misappropriation of monies of the Group Life Insurance Scheme,
amounting to theft;
32 See : Paragraph 9.5 of the Founding Affidavit.
33 Hereinafter referred to as "the SAAF".
31.5 The Fourth Respondent set the jurisdictional facts comprehensively in her
Affidavit in Support of the Search and Seizure Warrants, which include the
offences that were investigated and in which the relevant sections of various acts
alleged transgressed by the Applicants were described and quoted. The Fourth
Respondent furthermore divulged information that constitutes crucial evidence of
the criminal proceedings that are to be instituted;
31.6 The magistrates issued the Search and Seizure Warrants on 10 April
2024, in accordance with the provisions of Section 21, read with Section 20 and
Chapter 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Section 29(1) of the Cybercrimes
Act;
31.7 Both the aforementioned Warrants were issued on the strength of the
evidence contained in the Fourth Respondent's Affidavit in which she adduced
sufficient evidence, under oath, that there are reasonable grounds that the
objects connected with the offence may be found on the premises or persons
intended to be searched within the jurisdiction of the magistrates; and
31.8 Both Warrants were executed on 18 April 2024 and 19 April 2024
respectively.
32. Lieutenant Colonel Pieter Allen and three other members of the SAPS attended
at the Second Applicant's residential address on 18 April 2024 to execute the Search
and Seizure Warrants in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act and the Cybercrimes Act.
Upon arrival at the Second Applicant's residence the Search and Seizure Warrants were
presented to her, and a copy thereof provided to her. The Second Applicant indicated
that she did not have an objection to the search and seizure.
33. The Fifth Respondent arrived at the offices of the SAAF to execute the Search
and Seizure Warrants. A copy of the Search and Seizure Warrants were handed over to
the representative of the SAAF, namely Mrs Monique Muhl.
34. The Second Applicant was granted an opportunity to consult with her legal
representative and after such consultation the Second Applicant did not object to the
search and seizure. The Second Applicant on the advice of her legal representative did
not raise any issue with the Search and Seizure Warrants upon receiving a copy
thereof. Even after consulting with her legal representatives, she did not raise any
objections.
35. Lieutenant Colonel Jacq Velloen and other members of the SAPS arrived at the
First Applicant's residence on 19 April 2024 to execute the Search and Seizure
Warrants in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act and the Cybercrimes Act34.
36. At the time of the search, the Warrants were presented to the Applicants, but the
Fourth Respondent's Affidavit, which was part of the Application for the Warrants before
the magistrates, was not presented to the Applicants. The body of the Search Warrants
specifically refers that it appears to the magistrate "from information on oath that there
are reasonable grounds to believe that... ". The aforementioned reference refers directly
to the Fourth Respondent's Affidavit deposed to in support of the Application for the
Search and Seizure Warrants.
37. The Applicants were specifically informed that the Fourth Respondent's Affidavits
in question would not be presented to them as such Affidavits contained crucial
information relating to the investigation and constituted important evidence. Ordinarily
the Affidavit in Support of the Warrant may accompany the Warrant and be handed over
with it, but due to the nature of the offences committed and suspected to still being
34 Paragraph 44 of the Answering Affidavit incorrectly refers to "the Second Applicant's residential
address".
committed, the limitation of the right of the Applicants to have access to the information
in this instance is justified.
38. Upon request of the Fourth Respondent's Affidavits, the Applicants were informed
that they should bring an application requesting for disclosure of such evidence. The
Respondents are of the opinion that should the Applicants be privy to the information in
the Supporting Affidavit deposed to by the Fourth Respondent, the entire investigation
will be compromised.
39. In respect of the raised absence of Annexure A, and labelling of Annexure A as
Annexure F, it is an error which can be condoned and is not fatal for the validity of the
Warrants. The document with the heading "Annexure F" was supposed to be titled
"Annexure A". The Applicants clearly understood this, which is the reason why they did
not raise any objection at the time they were presented with the Warrants.
40. Furthermore, upon request of the aforementioned annexures, the Applicants
were specifically informed of this error or oversight. The articles to be searched for and
seized were described with sufficient particularity and the Warrants are reasonably
intelligible to both the searcher and the Applicants.
41. The Search Warrants set out the offence which triggered the investigation,
namely theft. In particular the Warrants state that there is a suspected misappropriation
of monies which amounts to theft.
42. The Search and Seizure Warrants are therefore neither vague, nor overboard, as
both Warrants comply with the intelligibility principle.
43. In the premises the Respondents submit that the Applicants have failed to make
out a proper case for the setting aside of the Search and Seizure Warrants which were
authorized in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act and the Cybercrimes Act.
E. DISCUSSION
44. Section 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that, subject to certain
provisions, an article referred to in Section 20 shall be seized only by virtue of a Search
Warrant issued by a magistrate, if it appears to such magistrate, from information on
oath, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any such article is in the
possession or under the control of or upon any person or upon or at any premises within
his area of jurisdiction.
45. The Constitutional Court held in this regard as follows:
"Sections 20 and 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act give authority to judicial
officers to issue search and seizure Warrants. Secondly, the section
requires that the decision to issue a Warrant be made only if the affidavit in
support of the application contains the following objective jurisdictional
facts :
(i) The existence of a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been
committed; and
(ii) The existence of reasonable grounds to believe that objects
connected with the offence may be found on the premises or persons
intended to be searched.35"
46. The magistrates were provided with the Fourth Respondent's Affidavit which
contained the objective jurisdictional facts, which is evident from the first pages of the
Search and Seizure Warrants. The Search and Seizure Warrants were therefore issued
in compliance with the provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
35 See : Minister of Safety and Security v Van der Merwe and Others 2011 (2) SACR 301 (CC) at paras 9
and 10.
47. In the absence of an abuse of power or a gross violation of the Applicants' rights,
a Court should be slow to find that a Search Warrant is unlawful on purely technical
grounds36.
48. The magistrates acted within the bounds of the authority conferred to them by the
Criminal Procedure Act. There was accordingly no abuse of power in issuing the Search
and Seizure Warrants.
49. The Respondents have demonstrated that Annexure A was erroneously labelled
Annexure F. It is clear that Annexure F sets out the articles to be searched for and
seized. The object of the search was clear.
50. The Search and Seizure Warrants were not vague in that they made specific
reference to what offences were being investigated. The Search Warrants specifically
state that the offences being investigated is the suspected misappropriation of monies,
amounting to theft. The nature of the offence is therefore clearly identified and the
Warrants therefore meet the objective test of reasonable intelligibility.
51. It is evident that the Respondents did not embark on a general ransacking of the
Applicants' premises, as the Respondents gathered evidence relating to the suspected
offences under investigation. The articles were searched for and seized in terms of the
Search and Seizure Warrants.
52. The Respondents were executing valid Search and Seizure Warrants and
therefore had the requisite authority to search for and seize the articles as set out in the
annexures to the Search Warrants.
36 See : Pretoria Portland Cement Co. Ltd and Another v Competition Commission and Others 2003 (2)
SA 385 (SCA) at paras 71 and 73.
53. The same principles applies for the Search Warrants which were issued in terms
of the Cybercrimes Act. Section 1 of the Cybercrimes Act defines "article" as data,
computer program; data storage medium; or computer system.
54. All the articles listed in Annexure F to the Search Warrants issued in terms of
Section 29(1) of the Cybercrimes Act are articles as defined in Section 1 of the
Cybercrimes Act. The Applicants' contention that the Cybercrimes Act does not apply to
physical items is therefore misconceived and ill-founded.
55. The terms of the Search Warrants issued in terms of the Cybercrimes Act were
not too general or vague. The Search Warrants are intelligible to both the searcher and
the searched person37.
56. Section 12 of the Cybercrimes Act provides that the common law offence of theft
must be interpreted so as to not exclude the theft of incorporeal property.
57. This Court is therefore satisfied that the objective jurisdictional facts were present
and that the Warrants comply with the statutory requirements provided for and
envisaged in the Criminal Procedure Act and the Cybercrimes Act.
58. The terms of the Warrants were clear and not vague, as submitted by the
Applicants. The articles to be searched and seized were specified with sufficient
particularity in the annexures attached to the Warrants.
59. The Warrants are reasonable intelligible to both the searcher and the searched
person. The offence of theft, which triggered the criminal investigation, was sufficiently
set out in the Warrants.
60. The magistrates who issued the Warrants had authority to do so in accordance
with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act and the Cybercrimes Act. The
37 See : Minister of Safety and Security v Van der Merwe, supra, at para 11.
magistrates, furthermore, satisfied themselves that the Affidavit deposed to by the
Fourth Respondent contained sufficient information on the existence of the jurisdictional
facts.
61. The Search and Seizure Warrants and therefore not tainted by any irregularity.
The Search and Seizure Warrants were therefore lawfully issued and lawfully executed.
F. CONCLUSION
62. The Applicants have therefore not satisfied the onus of proof in relation to the
relief they apply for.
63. This Court cannot come to the Applicants' assistance as it is evident that the
Search and Seizure Warrants were lawfully obtained and lawfully executed by the
Respondents.
64. Sufficient evidence was adduced by the Fourth Respondent in her Affidavit in
support of the Warrants so as to establish a prima facie case of theft against the
Applicants.
65. The costs of this application should follow the result.
In the premises an order in the following terms is made:
1. Condonation is granted to the Respondents for the late filing of their
Answering Affidavit;
2. The point in limine raised by the Respondents in respect of the non -
joinder of the magistrates is dismissed with costs, on the scale as between
party and party [Scale B]; and
3. The application is dismissed with costs, on the scale as between
party and party [Scale B].
FW BOTES
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA