Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng Division v Thato Molefe and Another

The respondents were charged in the regional court with manufacturing and dealing in drugs under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992, and with possession of an illegal firearm and ammunition under the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000. The State’s case rested entirely on drugs and drug‑manufacturing equipment worth approximately R26 million discovered on premises owned by the second respondent. The search was conducted pursuant to a warrant obtained by a police officer acting on informant information. It was common cause that the warrant was defective: it was addressed to ‘all police officials’ rather than a named officer, and it reflected an incorrect address, although the correct premises were searched. The regional court held that the defect rendered the warrant invalid and, relying on S v Malherbe, ruled the evidence inadmissible. The State closed its case and the respondents were acquitted under s 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The High Court dismissed the State’s appeal. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal on a question of law.

The appeal was upheld. The orders of the High Court and regional court were set aside. The seized material was declared admissible, the acquittals on counts 1–5 were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the regional court to continue with the trial.

The case clarifies the correct approach to section 35(5) of the Constitution and confirms that a defective or invalid search warrant does not automatically lead to the exclusion of evidence. It limits an overly broad reading of S v Malherbe and reinforces a contextual, fact‑based inquiry focused on trial fairness, police conduct, and the administration of justice. The judgment is significant for criminal procedure and evidence law, particularly in balancing constitutional rights with effective law enforcement.