- The SCA has stated that a forfeiture application under POCA is considered “pending” once it is issued within 90 days, even if it has not yet been served.
- The majority held that requiring service within 90 days would undermine the purpose of asset forfeiture and impede the recovery of proceeds of crime.
- A dissent warned that this interpretation risks abuse of preservation orders and weakens constitutional protections for property owners.
The Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled that a forfeiture application under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA) is “pending” once it is issued within 90 days after a preservation order is published in the Government Gazette, and does not need to be served within that same period.
In overturning a KwaZulu-Natal High Court decision, the SCA resolved an important procedural dispute with significant consequences for the operation of preservation and forfeiture proceedings under POCA.
The case arose from the seizure of R46 120 from Sithembiso Adolphus Gcaba, who was arrested in possession of several SASSA cards and cash suspected to be the proceeds of crime. Acting through the National Director of Public Prosecutions, the State obtained a preservation order freezing the money under Chapter 6 of POCA.
The forfeiture application that followed was only served on Gcaba several months later. He challenged its validity, arguing that Section 40(a) of POCA requires a forfeiture application to be both issued and served within 90 days of the preservation order’s publication for it to be regarded as “pending”.
The KwaZulu-Natal High Court agreed. It held that issuing alone was insufficient, dismissed the forfeiture application, and allowed the preservation order to lapse. The NDPP appealed.
Meaning of “pending” under Section 40(a)
At the Supreme Court of Appeal, the dispute turned on the proper interpretation of the word “pending” in Section 40(a) of POCA. Writing for the majority, Acting Judge RCA Henney held that the High Court had read an additional service requirement into the statute that does not appear in its text.
The SCA emphasised that Chapter 6 of POCA is concerned not with prosecuting offenders, but with the forfeiture of property linked to criminal activity. “Chapter 6 focuses, not on wrongdoers, but on property used for an offence, or which is the proceeds of crime,” Judge Henney said.
Requiring service within the 90 days, the court warned, would lead to impractical and irrational outcomes. Referring to the meaning of “pending” Judge Henney noted that such an interpretation would require forfeiture applications to be served within 90 days, even if there is no one to serve it to”, undermining the structure and purpose of POCA.
The court rejected the argument that issuing alone leaves affected persons without protection. It held that POCA contains sufficient safeguards to prevent abuse once a forfeiture application has been issued and while proceedings remain pending. “POCA has enough safeguards to prevent process abuse and to protect the rights of affected persons once the application is issued,” the judgment stated.
Majority judgment: the issue is enough
The court cautioned that the High Court’s interpretation would weaken the State’s ability to recover the proceeds of crime. Judge Henney warned that overly restrictive procedural requirements could allow forfeiture proceedings to fail on technical grounds, even where the State has acted timeously.
“The Act’s goal to tackle organised crime and recover illicit assets would be hindered by overly restrictive service requirements,” he said, concluding that a forfeiture application becomes “pending” once it is issued. Service, while necessary for fairness and participation, is not a prerequisite for keeping a preservation order alive.
Dissent warns of abuse of preservation orders
In a dissenting judgment, the minority warned that the majority’s interpretation risks diluting the protection built into section 40(a) of POCA. The dissent expressed concern that preservation orders could remain in force for extended periods without affected persons being aware that their property is still frozen.
The dissent was particularly troubled by the months-long delay in serving Gcaba, noting that preservation orders are intrusive and can have serious consequences if allowed to persist through procedural inertia. In its view, requiring service within 90 days better balances the State’s interest in asset forfeiture with constitutional protections for property owners.
Despite those concerns, the majority ruling prevailed. The forfeiture application was reinstated, and the Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed that under POCA, issuing a forfeiture application within 90 days is sufficient to keep a preservation order in effect.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
