Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:07:21Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:07:21Z
dc.date.created 2006-10-04 en
dc.identifier.citation [2007] ZACC 4
dc.identifier.citation 2007 (4) SA 222 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2007 (6) BCLR 575 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3138
dc.title Mohunram and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (Law Review Project as Amicus Curiae) en
dc.title.alternative CCT19/06 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT19/06 en
dc.contributor.judge Van Heerden AJ Majority judgment
dc.contributor.judge Moseneke DCJ dissenting judgment
dc.contributor.judge Sachs J dissenting judgment
dc.date.judgment 26 March 2007
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3138/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28494%20Kb%29-11076.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Application challenging the validity of the forfeiture of a house, in terms of POCA, that had been used in gambling operations. There was no dispute that the house was an instrumentality of the offence but the Court disagreed on whether such forfeiture was proportionate. The majority held that the forfeiture was disproportionate. Majority: Moseneke DCJ (concurring Mokgoro J and Nkabinde J) Separate Concurrences: Sachs J (concurring O'Regan J and Kondile AJ) Dissent: Van Heerden AJ (concurring Langa CJ, Madala J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J)


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account