- Vuyiswa Venery Ngcobo failed to overturn an order forfeiting the R450,000 replacement value of her Jaguar F-Pace to the state.
- The vehicle was linked to payments by business associates connected to two eThekwini Municipality tender processes.
- The court rejected Ngcobo’s explanation that the Jaguar was an early wedding gift funded by money owed to her late mother’s business.
Vuyiswa Venery Ngcobo has failed to recover the R450,000 replacement value of her Jaguar F-Pace after a judge found that the vehicle was linked to corruption and money laundering involving two eThekwini Municipality tender processes.
A full bench of the High Court in Pietermaritzburg dismissed Ngcobo’s appeal against the forfeiture order on 9 October 2026. Judge ME Nkosi, with other judges concurring, found that the National Director of Public Prosecutions had proved on a balance of probabilities that the vehicle was an instrumentality of offences listed under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act.
Business associates funded the Jaguar
The Jaguar F-Pace was purchased in November 2017 for R990,539. Although it was bought for Ngcobo, it was initially registered in the name of Mzwandile Dludla, a businessman whose companies had dealings with the municipality. The vehicle was eventually registered in Ngcobo’s maiden name, Cembi, in March 2019.
The purchase was funded through R400,000 transferred by Dludla, R200,000 deposited in cash by Hlenga Sibisi, and a BMW 3 Series valued at R400,000 traded in by Jobe & Sons Holdings.
At the time, Ngcobo’s husband, Sandile Ngcobo, was deputy head of the municipality’s Supply Chain Management unit. He chaired the Bid Adjudication Committee, which considered municipal procurement decisions.
The National Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the payments and trade-in were connected to two tender processes involving companies associated with the people who funded the Jaguar.
Refuse collection tender raised concerns
The first tender involved refuse collection, street cleaning and illegal dumping management in parts of eThekwini. In December 2017, the Bid Adjudication Committee approved a recommendation to appoint four service providers, including Ilanga Lamahlase Projects, whose sole director was Dludla.
Ngcobo’s husband chaired the committee meeting that approved the appointment. He did not declare an interest in the tender, despite the Jaguar having been purchased for his wife less than two months earlier with contributions from people connected to Dludla.
The court also considered telephone records showing frequent communication between Sandile Ngcobo and Sibisi, Dludla’s uncle, as well as between Sibisi and Ngcobo. The judges found that the failure to disclose the relationships supported the conclusion that the parties had sought to conceal a corrupt relationship.
BMW trade-in linked to stationery tender
The second tender involved the supply of stationery to the municipality. Jobe & Sons Holdings, whose sole director was Nkululeko Sithole, was awarded part of the contract after another service provider’s portion was withdrawn.
Sandile Ngcobo chaired the committee meeting that considered the recommendation to award the contract to Jobe, but did not declare his relationship with Sithole. Three weeks later, Sithole’s BMW was used as part payment for the Jaguar bought for Ngcobo’s wife.
Judge Nkosi found that the circumstances supported the inference that the vehicle contribution was intended as gratification for Sandile Ngcobo to influence the award of the stationery contract to Jobe.
The court concluded that the National Director of Public Prosecutions had proved on a balance of probabilities that the Jaguar was an instrumentality of at least two offences listed in Schedule 1 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act: corruption and money laundering.
Court rejects wedding-gift explanation
Ngcobo argued that the Jaguar was an early wedding gift from her late mother, who had operated a business called Zithivum Trading Enterprise. She claimed that the business had provided services to Isibaya General Business Traders, a company associated with Dludla, and that the vehicle was purchased using money owed for those services.
She relied on four invoices totalling more than R1.18 million and an acknowledgement of debt allegedly issued by Isibaya. According to her explanation, her mother had asked Sibisi to arrange payment because her health was deteriorating and she wanted her daughter to have the vehicle before her planned 2018 wedding.
The National Director of Public Prosecutions disputed this account, arguing that the documents had been fabricated to give legitimacy to the purchase.
Judge Nkosi found significant problems with the documents. The invoices lacked supporting evidence that the services had actually been requested and delivered, while the purported acknowledgement of debt was unsigned and contained inconsistencies about the amount and interest.
The court concluded that Ngcobo’s explanation did not establish a genuine dispute of fact requiring oral evidence. She had also failed to show that she had acquired the vehicle legally and neither knew nor had reasonable grounds to suspect that it was linked to an offence.
Forfeiture can proceed independently
Ngcobo also argued that a restraint order over the property prevented the court from granting a forfeiture order. The full bench rejected this argument, finding that restraint and preservation orders are interim measures and do not necessarily prevent subsequent forfeiture.
The judgment explained that forfeiture proceedings can proceed independently of criminal proceedings, provided the statutory requirements are met. A restraint order does not have to remain in place until criminal proceedings have concluded.
The Jaguar was damaged beyond repair before the original forfeiture order was granted. Consequently, the R450,000 replacement value paid by the vehicle’s insurer was forfeited to the state.
The full bench dismissed Ngcobo’s appeal and ordered her to pay the costs of the appeal.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
