- The sheriff attached 1,200 SAPS devices at provincial offices in Polokwane to recover R1.158 million.
- The Minister disputed the debt, saying SAPS had already paid the amount due and challenging the 160% interest calculation.
- The High Court in Polokwane stopped the execution because the seizure could disrupt police operations while a rescission application remained pending.
Hundreds of computers and printers belonging to SAPS were placed in the sheriff’s hands to recover a disputed R1.158 million debt, forcing the Minister of Police to seek urgent court intervention.
A writ issued against SAPS movable property resulted in the attachment of 400 laptops, 400 desktop computers and 400 printers at the police service’s provincial offices in Polokwane. The writ was issued on 4 May 2026 and served the following day, directing the Sheriff of the High Court, Pretoria Central, to attach and remove SAPS movable assets to raise R1,158,096.27, together with costs, for payment to Mohlatlego Trading Enterprise CC.
The Minister then went to the High Court in Polokwane to stop the execution while a rescission application about the underlying judgment was still pending. Acting Judge Mokgerwa Makoti ultimately stayed the writ until the outcome of the rescission proceedings.
The judgment was delivered on 11 August 2026 in a dispute between the Minister of Police, Mohlatlego Trading Enterprise CC, Muhle Unlimited Design and the Sheriff of the High Court, Pretoria Central.
The sheriff had already attached the equipment
The R1.158 million claim stems from a series of orders for work Mohlatlego Trading Enterprise CC did on an SAPS construction project. An order on 10 August 2023 restored Mohlatlego as consultant and allowed it to issue a final payment certificate.
Another order on 17 October 2023 required the parties to discuss implementation and directed the Minister to complete a project status report and pay once the final certificate had been issued, including interest at 160 percent.
An order on 13 December 2023 handled the final payment, which was later amended by Acting Judge MHM Masilo on 27 February 2026. Paragraph 2A was added, requiring payment of R1,158,096.27 in interest on the final payment certificate, calculated at 160 per cent. Mohlatlego then arranged for the writ to be issued against SAPS property. By the time the Minister went to court, the sheriff had already attached the equipment.
Minister says SAPS had already paid
The Minister disputed the debt, insisting SAPS had complied with the previous order and paid Mohlatlego in full. Mohlatlego issued a final payment certificate on 13 December 2023, and SAPS paid the full invoice on 4 January 2024.
The Minister also questioned the 160 percent interest and the legal basis for it. Judge Makoti found that these disputes meant the underlying causa of the contested amount was still unresolved. The judge described the original order J as “the root on which all the other orders are anchored.” The later order by Judge Masilo used that base value and calculated the disputed interest.
Rescission bid was already awaiting judgment
The Minister had already applied for rescission of the 10 August 2023 order. By the time the urgent application was heard, that rescission bid had been argued, and judgment was pending.
The Minister argued that execution should not continue before the underlying dispute was resolved, while Mohlatlego said the writ was based on the February 2026 order. Judge Makoti found that the earlier order remained central because it was the foundation for all the subsequent orders and the calculation of what was allegedly owed.
Minister makes last-minute intervention
The Minister first tried to stop the execution without going to court. On 21 May 2026, PT Malatji from the State Attorneys’ office in Polokwane wrote to Mohlatlego’s lawyers, asking them to suspend execution against SAPS property while the rescission application was pending.
State Attorneys warned they would go to court if the undertaking was refused. When Mohlatlego’s attorneys declined on 26 May, the urgent application was only brought in mid-June, leading Mohlatlego to argue that the Minister had created his own urgency.
Judge Makoti accepted that the Minister’s conduct could be criticised but found that this was not a good enough reason to deny urgent relief. The judge said, “While there may be room to criticise the Minister for acting inefficiently in approaching court, that is not sufficient reason for purposes of this case to slam the door on his face.”
Court accepts seizure could disrupt policing
The Minister argued that executing against the attached equipment would interfere with SAPS operations. The court agreed.
“On the facts of this case I am satisfied that the execution of the attached movable assets will disrupt police operations,” Judge Makoti said.
The judge also found that the Minister and SAPS would have no substantial redress if the matter followed ordinary court processes. Rule 45A of the Uniform Rules of Court gives a court wide discretion to suspend execution, and Judge Makoti noted that a stay may be justified where the underlying causa of a judgment debt is disputed.
The pending rescission application strengthened the case for intervention because the underlying proceedings had not reached finality.
Disputed interest adds to the uncertainty
The dispute was not only about whether SAPS had paid the original amount. The Minister also challenged the 160 percent interest calculation that produced the R1.158 million being pursued through the writ.
The rescission application had already been heard, and the parties were waiting for judgment that could affect the foundation of the execution. “It will not, in my view, take an overly long period before it is delivered,” Judge Makoti said.
Mohlatlego argued the Minister should be refused relief because he had not purged his alleged contempt of the earlier order. Judge Makoti rejected the argument, finding that the application was about suspending execution while the amount remained disputed.
“As I understand it, the amount awarded in the said order is being disputed,” the judge said.
Sheriff stopped from taking SAPS equipment
Judge Makoti found that the Minister had met the threshold for relief. The application was declared urgent in terms of Rule 6(12)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court, and the writ of execution was stayed pending the final determination of the rescission application.
Mohlatlego was ordered to pay the costs of the application on a party-and-party scale “A”. For now, the sheriff cannot proceed with execution against the attached SAPS equipment while the underlying dispute remains unresolved.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
