Minister of Police and Another v SA Metal and Machinery Company (Pty) Ltd

Members of the South African Police Service (SAPS) seized various items of scrap metal from the respondent’s premises in June 2008 under s 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, suspecting that the goods were stolen. The respondent later applied for the return of the goods, as no criminal proceedings were instituted against it in respect of most of the items. Before filing opposing papers, SAPS informed the respondent that the goods had already been disposed of in terms of s 31 of the CPA, either returned to alleged owners or sold. The respondent amended its application to seek damages under the actio ad exhibendum for the value of the goods. The High Court granted damages, and the Minister of Police appealed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, and the order awarding the respondent damages in the amount of R8 611.50 was upheld.

The case clarifies the interpretation of s 31(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and confirms that the onus lies on the State to justify retention or disposal of seized goods by proving unlawful possession. It also affirms that non-compliance with regulatory statutes does not necessarily render possession unlawful and that damages under the actio ad exhibendum may be claimed in motion proceedings where appropriate.