Goqwana v Minister of Safety and Security NO and Others

The appellant operated an internet lounge in Phalaborwa. Acting on a complaint by the Limpopo Gambling Board that the premises were being used for unlawful gambling activities without a licence, a magistrate issued a search warrant on 3 May 2012. The warrant authorised a search of the appellant’s business premises and the seizure of computers, electronic devices, furniture and cash. The warrant was addressed only to “the Station Commander”, did not specify a named police official or police station, and referred generally to “Illegal Interactive Gambling (Online Gambling)” without citing a specific statutory offence or section. The supporting affidavit referred to various provisions of the National Gambling Act 7 of 2004 and the Northern Province Casino and Gaming Act 4 of 1996, but did not mention unauthorised interactive gambling under section 11 of the National Gambling Act. During the search, goods and cash were seized. The appellant sought restoration of possession, arguing that the warrant was fatally defective and the seizure unlawful. The High Court and a full bench dismissed the application, after which the matter came before the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the High Court was set aside. The search warrant issued on 3 May 2012 was declared invalid and set aside. The respondents were ordered to return forthwith all goods and monies seized from the appellant. The first to fourth respondents were ordered to pay the costs jointly and severally.

This case is significant for reinforcing strict constitutional and statutory requirements governing search warrants in South African law. It clarifies that warrants must identify a specific police official and, in cases involving statutory offences, must expressly cite the relevant statute and section. The judgment strengthens protections for privacy, property, and dignity by insisting on precision and accountability in the issuing and execution of search warrants.