Synopsis:
Applicant unsuccessfully applied to High Court to set aside forfeiture of foreign currency. Application to this Court for leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court. The Court held that, according to the regulations, the currency was not forfeited immediately upon seizure. It was forfeited only after the official had decided that some or none of the money should be returned to any affected person. That decision had to be taken consciously after the affected person made representations. Further that although the discretion was indeed wide, the regulation seeks to mitigate undue hardship and injustice, and that, while forfeiture of currency did have a punitive element, it did not amount to a criminal penalty. The regulations did not violate the right of access to court guaranteed in the Constitution. Held that the official performed an administrative function. The Court concluded that the regulation did not allow arbitrary deprivation of property contrary to the Constitution, because the link between the purpose of the deprivation, the owner and the property could hardly have been closer. Application for leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed. Majority: Mokgoro J (unanimous).
