Thint (Pty) Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others; Zuma and Another v NDPP and Others

Thint (Pty) Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others; Zuma and Another v NDPP and Others

dc.concourt.casehistory	Application for leave to appeal against two judgments of the SCA: Thint (Pty) Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions [2008] 1 All SA 229 (SCA) and National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma and Another [2008] 1 All SA 197 (SCA). The SCA orders respectively overturned the earlier judgment of the Durban High Court: Zuma and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others 2006 (1) SACR 468 (D); [2006] 2 All SA 91 (D) and confirmed the judgment of the Pretoria High Court: Thint (Pty) Ltd and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others Case No 268/2006 of the Pretoria High Court, 4 July 2006, unreported. This is an application to the CC to have the two orders of the SCA set aside.
dc.concourt.synopsis	Application for leave to appeal concerning search and seizure warrants which authorised, in terms of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, searches and seizures carried out by the National Prosecuting Authority (the state) to obtain information connected to the investigation of serious, organised crime. Whether the warrants violated the applicants? rights to privacy and property. The majority held that a balance must be struck between protecting privacy and property interests and the state?s constitutionally mandated task of prosecuting crime. An application for a warrant must disclose material facts and must demonstrate a ?need? for a warrant, which requires there being an appreciable risk that the state would be unable to obtain the information sought by other means. Warrants are required to be intelligible so that they are reasonably capable of being understood by the reasonably well-informed person. The majority held that these requirements were met in these cases, and that specific mention in the warrants of the right to claim legal privilege was not required. The appeal was dismissed. Majority: Langa CJ (O?Regan ADCJ, Jafta AJ, Kroon AJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J concurring). Dissent: Ngcobo J
dc.contributor.judge	Langa CJ Majority judgment
dc.contributor.judge	Ngcobo J dissenting judgment
dc.date.accessioned	2017-04-08T17:09:17Z
dc.date.available	2017-04-08T17:09:17Z
dc.date.created	2008-01-21	en
dc.date.hearing	11-13 March 2008
dc.date.judgment	31 July 2008
dc.identifier.casenumber	CCT89/07	en
dc.identifier.citation	[2008] ZACC 13
dc.identifier.citation	2009 (1) SA 1 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation	2008 (12) BCLR 1197 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation	2008 (2) SACR 421 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3425
dc.link.judgment	http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3425/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28805%20Kb%29-12696.pdf?sequence=14&isAllowed=y
dc.title	Thint (Pty) Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others; Zuma and Another v NDPP and Others	en
dc.title.alternative	CCT89/07	en