100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
Previously searched by you
Find and summarise the case of National Director of Public Prosecutions v Botha (CCT 280/18) [2020] ZACC 06. Your summary must highlight the facts, legal question, the findings and decision of the court [20 marks]R80,00
Find and summarise the case of National Director of Public Prosecutions v Botha (CCT 280/18) [2020] ZACC 06. Your summary must highlight the facts, legal question, the findings and decision of the court [20 marks]
Find and summarise the case of National Director of Public Prosecutions v Botha (CCT 280/18)
[2020] ZACC 06. Your summary must highlight the facts, legal question, the findings and
decision of the court
[20 marks]
IRM1501 ASSIGNMENT 02
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
During her time as Head of Department for the Northern Cape Department of Social
Services and Population Development (HOD), Ms. Botha awarded tenders to a
company known as Trifecta Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd (Trifecta) which would
acquire desolate buildings within the Northern Cape, renovate the buildings and
lease the buildings to government departments at exorbitant rates. Ultimately this led
to the government suffering a loss of an estimated R26 billion.
In return for the tenders, Trifecta renovated Ms. Botha’s family home amounting to
R1169 068.49 and through convoluted and illicit means Ms. Botha undertook to pay
for these renovations by issuing a certificate of indebtedness and entering into a
“loan agreement” with Trifecta for amounts that the Court appreciated to be less than
the costs of the renovations.
Ms. Botha left her employment as HOD and was elected to Parliament. She failed to
declare the gratifications received from Trifecta as she was required to do which lead
to a parliamentary inquiry being launched against her.
LEGAL QUESTION
The issues that the SCA had to consider were, firstly, whether section 25(1) of the
Constitution protects the unlawful proceeds of crime from arbitrary deprivation, and
secondly, whether the doctrine of proportionality applies to both instrumentality and
proceeds of unlawful activity in terms of section 50 of POCA.
FINDINGS
The Supreme Court of Appeal erred in deducting that amount from the R1 169 068.
But the Supreme Court of Appeal rightly reversed the forfeiture order granted by the
High Court. The latter Court had ordered that the entire house of Ms Botha be
forfeited to the state. This was not warranted because not the whole house was
proceeds of unlawful activities. The order should have been limited to the value of
those proceeds. Otherwise the forfeiture of the entire house constituted an arbitrary
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller rudolf2514. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R80,00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
