The first appellant was charged with dealing in drugs in contravention of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992. The National Director of Public Prosecutions obtained an ex parte provisional restraint order in terms of section 26 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA) against the appellants. The order related to twelve immovable properties, Persian carpets, works of art, vehicles and numerous bank accounts. A curator bonis (Theodor Wilhelm van der Heever of Deloitte & Touche Trust) was appointed to administer the restrained property. The restraint order contained provisions (paragraphs 1.7, 1.8, 1.20 and 4.3.2) authorizing the curator to sell assets under restraint in order to properly administer the assets under his control and to pay expenses related to restrained assets which would ordinarily be carried by the estate. The Witwatersrand Local Division confirmed the provisional restraint order. The appellants appealed, challenging the powers conferred on the curator bonis.
The appeal was dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. The restraint order and the powers conferred on the curator bonis in paragraphs 1.7, 1.8, 1.20 and 4.3.2 were upheld.
A High Court may, in terms of section 28(1)(a) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998, authorize a curator bonis appointed to administer property subject to a restraint order to alienate (sell or encumber) that property where necessary to properly administer the assets under his control and to pay expenses related to restrained assets which would ordinarily be carried by the estate. Such authorization does not defeat the purpose of POCA because: (1) it serves to preserve the current value of realisable property for satisfying any confiscation order, as required by section 33; (2) proper administration and payment of necessary expenses (such as rates, taxes and maintenance) prevents greater diminution in property value than would result from the sale of some assets; and (3) the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965, which applies to curators appointed under POCA, contemplates that curators may be authorized to alienate property under section 80 thereof.
The court observed that it has become standard practice for a court, when appointing a curator to administer the property of a minor or of a person not able to manage his own affairs, to confer on the curator the power to alienate movable and immovable property, citing Ex parte Hulett 1968 (4) SA 172 (D) and Ex parte Thompson 1983 (4) SA 392 (E). This is described as a power "which a curator would normally require in order fully to administer his ward's estate." The court noted that property may depreciate in value at such a rate and extent that proper estate administration may require its sale, and that not allowing alienation in such circumstances would defeat the purpose of POCA and may be unfair to the defendant. The court also commented that the appellants would benefit from payment of expenses related to restrained assets which would ordinarily be carried by the estate.
This case is significant in South African law as it establishes the scope of powers that may be conferred on a curator bonis appointed under section 28 of POCA. It clarifies that curators may be authorized to alienate restrained property where necessary for proper administration and preservation of value. The judgment balances the objectives of asset preservation pending confiscation proceedings with the practical realities of estate administration. It demonstrates how POCA should be interpreted in light of its purpose and in conjunction with the Administration of Estates Act. The case provides important guidance on the administration of restrained assets in organized crime and asset forfeiture cases, confirming that preservation of value, rather than preservation of specific assets in their original form, is the legislative intent.
Explore 1 related case • Click to navigate