1. This is an application brought in terms of the common law for the setting aside of a property seizure order.
2. The property seizure order was granted by this court on 21 February 2022. It was made on the basis of an application by the Prosecutor-General in terms of s 47 of the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act [Chapter 9:24] (“the Money Laundering Act”). The application that gave rise to the order was an ex parte chamber application. More
On 21 April 2020 I presided over a bail application by the applicants under B84/20. I dismissed the application. This application is a follow up application citing changed circumstances. More
This is an application for condonation of the failure to file an application for reinstatement of an appeal in terms of r70 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules 2018. If condonation is granted to the applicant it would like to then file an application for reinstatement of an appeal which was regarded as abandoned and deemed dismissed in terms of r37 (2) of this Court’s rules. More
The three applicants made this application purportedly in terms of the Common Law or alternatively Rule 449 of Order 49 of the High Court Rules 1971, for the rescission of the court order in case No. HC 2127/18. They aver that this Honourable court was misled into granting the order through fraud or that it was erroneously sought and erroneously granted in their absence. More
This is an appeal against the decision of Honourable Arbitrator J Ndomene dated 5 September 2018. The arbitrator’s findings were that,
(i) The claim for non payment had not prescribed.
(ii) The claim for underpayment be granted.
The brief background of the matter is that some of the Respondents were employed by the Appellant as Loss Control Assistants and others as Messengers. When parties appeared before the arbitrator they made the following submissions. More
The 3 appellants were convicted of 2 counts of stocktheft as defined in section 114 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act Chapter 9:23. They were sentenced to 9 years imprisonment on each count leaving them with an effective sentence of 18 years imprisonment. More
The law as regards the interpretation of s 198(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, [Chapter 9:07] which relates to the discharge of an accused at the close of the prosecution case is a well beaten path. It is however at times disheartening that these simple and often repeated principles are either misinterpreted, misunderstood or simply ignored. If both parties in a criminal trial fully appreciate this law and apply their minds a lot of valuable time and energy may be saved in criminal trials More
