Thint (Pty) Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions

On 12 August 2005, Ngoepe JP issued 22 search warrants in terms of section 29(4) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act 32 of 1998. On 18 August 2005, members of the Directorate of Special Operations executed the warrant at the appellant Thint (Pty) Ltd's office in Pretoria. The warrants also targeted premises associated with Mr Jacob Zuma, including the residence of Mr PJMR Moynot (a director of Thint), the homes and offices of Mr Zuma, and the offices of his attorneys Ms J Mahomed and Mr M Hulley. Items were seized and mirror images were made of computer hard drives. The appellant challenged the validity of the warrant in the Pretoria High Court before Du Plessis J, who dismissed the application with costs. The respondents conceded that the warrant for the Moynots' residence was invalid. Similar applications by Ms Mahomed (before Hussain J in Johannesburg) and Mr Zuma and Mr Hulley (before Hurt J in Durban) were successful, with those courts declaring the warrants invalid.

• Whether the search warrant issued in terms of section 29(4) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act 32 of 1998 was valid
• Whether the references to suspected offences in the warrant were inappropriately vague
• Whether the searches and seizures conducted pursuant to the warrant were lawful
• Whether a preservation order should be made in respect of seized items
• Whether costs should be awarded on an attorney and client scale and for three counsel

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel. The order of the High Court (Du Plessis J) dismissing the appellant's application was upheld.

By a 3-2 majority, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that search warrants issued in terms of section 29(4) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act 32 of 1998 were valid even where references to suspected offences were contested as vague, applying the reasoning in the companion case of National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma. The binding principle is that the validity of such warrants must be assessed according to the standards articulated in the Zuma judgment (delivered simultaneously). The court also established that costs on an attorney and client scale and costs of three counsel are not automatically warranted in applications challenging the validity of search warrants, even where constitutional rights are implicated.

The majority judgment (Farlam JA) expressed the view that where a preservation order is appropriate in cases involving seized materials, it should provide for the return of original items to the applicant while allowing the registrar to retain copies under seal until the conclusion of any related proceedings, subject to appropriate safeguards including notice requirements before the prosecution seeks access to the materials. Farlam JA also noted procedural matters regarding how sealed privileged documents should be handled by the registrar. Both majority and minority agreed (obiter) that there was no justification for punitive costs or the costs of three counsel in this type of application, suggesting that the ordinary scale and two counsel would be appropriate even in constitutional challenges of this nature.

This case forms part of important litigation concerning search and seizure powers under the National Prosecuting Authority Act in the context of the arms deal investigation involving Mr Jacob Zuma. It illustrates the courts' approach to the validity of search warrants issued under section 29(4) of the NPA Act, particularly regarding the specificity required in describing suspected offences. The case demonstrates judicial disagreement on the interpretation of warrant requirements and the proper balance between investigative powers and protection of rights. It also established procedural principles regarding preservation orders for seized materials and the appropriate scale of costs in such constitutional challenges. The case is significant as part of a trilogy of appeals heard simultaneously (together with Mahomed and Zuma/Hulley matters) that addressed similar issues arising from coordinated searches conducted on the same day.