Cresto Machines (Edms) Bpk v Die Afdeling Speur-Offisier, SA Polisie, Noord-Transvaal

JurisdictionSouth Africa
Citation1972 (1) SA 376 (A)

Cresto Machines (Edms) Bpk v Die Afdeling Speur-Offisier, SA Polisie, Noord-Transvaal
1972 (1) SA 376 (A)

1972 (1) SA p376


Citation

1972 (1) SA 376 (A)

Court

Appèlafdeling

Judge

Rumpff AR, Wessels AR, Potgieter AR, Jansen AR en Trollip AR

Heard

September 3, 1971

Judgment

October 1, 1971

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Wet — Uitleg van — Interpretasiewet 33 van 1957, art. 14 — Sekere uitdrukking in — Bedoeling van — G.K. R.571 van 11 April, 1969 — Aankondiging voor inwerkingtreding van Wet 51 van 1965 — Ongeldigheid van — Strafproses — Lasbrief ingevolge art. 42 van Wet 56 van 1955 uitgereik — Aansoek om permanente interdik om polisie te belet om sekere spykertafels, ens. te verwyder — Weiering van — Geen bewys dat aansoekdoner geregtig is om nie in sy besit verstoor te word nie — Getuienis — Sekondêre getuienis van 'n lasbrief — Teenparty het afstand gedoen van sy reg om die oorspronklike lasbrief voor die Hof te hê — Toelaatbaarheid van.

Headnote : Kopnota

Die bedoeling van die uitdrukking 'vir sover dit nodig is om die Wet by die inwerkingtreding daarvan in werking te stel' in artikel 14 van dié Interpretasiewet, 33 van 1957, skyn duidelik te wees dat Kennisgewings uitgereik kan word en andere handelinge verrig kan word ná aanname van die Wet vir sover dit nodig is om die Wet by sy inwerkingtreding te laat funksioneer.

Op 1 Julie 1969 het die appellant in 'n dringende aansoek om 'n permanente interdik 'n bevel nisi verkry wat die respondent beveel het om redes aan te voer waarom hy nie belet moes word om sekere 'vermaaklikheidsapparate', onder andere, spykertafels en so meer, die eiendom van die appellant, te verwyder uit die besit van persone aan wie hy dit verhuur het nie. In sy beantwoordende verklaring het die respondent beweer dat Goewermentskennisgewing R.571 van 11 April 1969 wat ingevolge artikel 7 (1) van Wet 51 van 1965 uitgevaardig is, die aanhou van sekere spykertafels, en so meer, verbied en dat hy op die punt was om teen die appellant en die huurders op te tree ingevolge artikel 50 van Wet 56 van 1955, toe die aansoek geloods is. Hy was in besit van die nodige lasbrief vir beslaglegging op die spykertafels en so meer, wat hy van 'n landdros verkry het ingevolge artikel 42 van Wet 56 van 1955. Die lasbrief is nie voor die Hof gelê nie. Op die keerdatum het die appellant aansoek gedoen dat viva voce getuienis aangehoor word ingevolge Hofreël 6 (5) (g). Die Hof het die aansoek van die hand gewys en die bevel nisi opgehef. In hoër beroep het die appellant betoog dat die Hof 'n permanente interdik moes toegestaan het op grond daarvan (1) dat Kennisgewing R.571 ongeldig is aangesien dit uitgereik is voor die inwerkingtreding van Wet 51 van 1965 op 1 Julie 1969; alternatiewelik, (2) dat die Hof gefouteer het om nie die aanhoor van mondelinge getuienis te beveel nie, en (3) dat die Kennisgewing geen spel tot gelukspel verklaar nie. Die appèl wat deur 'n Volle Hof verhoor is, is van die hand gewys. In 'n verdere appèl met die verlof van die Appèlafdeling,

Beslis, per RUMPFF, A.R. (met wie POTGIETER, A.R., en JANSEN, A.R., saamgestem het), dat die feite aantoon dat prima facie wel redelike gronde vir die vereiste vermoede ingevolge artikel 42 van Wet 56 van 1955 bestaan het.

Beslis, verder, egter, aangesien dit nie gesê kan word dat dit nodig was vir die funksionering van artikels 6 en 7 van Wet 51 van 1965 om reeds voor inwerkingtreding van die Wet 'n Kennisgewing van 'n verbod uit te reik nie, dat Kennisgewing R.571 ongeldig is.

Beslis, verder, aangesien die regsgeldigheid van 'n wetlike bepaling ter sprake was, dat die appellant geregtig was om die ongeldigheid van die Kennisgewing in sy repliek in die eerste Hof in geskil te plaas.

Beslis, verder, dat die voeging van die Minister van Justisie nie nodig was nie. Die vraag of die bewyslas op die appellant of op die respondent gerus het, bespreek maar nie beslis nie.

Beslis, verder, per TROLLIP, A.R. (met wie WESSELS, A.R., en POTGIETER, A.R.) saamgestem het), dat die aanvanklike bewyslas op die respondent was om te bewys dat die polisie se optrede regtens geregverdig was.

Beslis, verder, aangesien appellant afstand gedoen het van die vereiste dat respondent die oorspronklike lasbrief voorlê, dat sekondêre getuienis van die inhoud daarvan toelaatbaar was.

Beslis, verder, dat solank die lasbrief bestaan het, dié feit 'n goeie verweer teen appellant se eis was: die uiteindelike bewyslas het op die appellant gerus om die verweer van die bestaan van die lasbrief te vernietig.

Beslis, verder, aangesien die appellant onder al die omstandighede nie bewys het dat hy 'n duidelike reg gehad om nie in sy eiendomsreg of besit van die apparate gesteur te word nie, dat die appèl met koste van die hand gewys moes word.

Die beslissing in die Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling in Cresto Machines (Edms.) Bpk. v Die Afdeling Speuroffisier SA Polisie, Noord-Transvaal, 1970 (4) SA 350, bevestig.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Statute — Construction of — Interpretation Act, 33 of 1957, sec. 14 — Expression in — Intention of — G.N. R.571 of 11th April, 1969 — Promulgation of before Act 51 of 1965 came into effect — Invalidity of — Criminal procedure — Warrant issued under sec. 42 of Act 56 of 1955 — Application for permanent interdict restraining Police from removing certain pin-tables, etc — Refusal of — No proof that applicant entitled not to be disturbed in its possession — Evidence — Secondary evidence of a warrant — Opponent having waived its right to have original before the Court — Admissibility of.

Headnote : Kopnota

The object of the expression 'in so far as may be necessary for the purpose of bringing the law into operation at the commencement hereof' in section 14 of the Interpretation Act, 33 of 1957, appears clearly to be that Notices may be issued and other transactions carried out after the passing of the Act in so far as it is necessary for the Act to function at its commencement.

On 1st April, 1969, the appellant had, in an urgent application for a permanent interdict, obtained a rule nisi which called upon the respondent to show cause why he should not be restrained from removing certain 'amusement' apparatuses, inter alia, pin-tables, etc., of which the appellant was the owner, from the possession of persons to whom these had been hired. In his answering affidavit the respondent averred that under Government Notice R.571 of 11th April, 1969, issued in terms of section 7 (1) of Act 51 of 1965, the possession of certain pin-tables, etc., was prohibited and that he was on the point of proceeding against the appellant and the lessees, in terms of section 50 of Act 56 of 1955, when the application was launched. He was in possession of the necessary search warrant for the attachment of the pin-tables, etc., which he had obtained from a magistrate under section

1972 (1) SA p377

42 of Act 56 of 1955. The warrant was not produced to the Court. On the return day the appellant applied for the hearing of oral evidence in terms of Rule of Court 6 (5) (g). The Court refused this application and discharged the rule nisi. In an appeal, the appellant contended that the Court should have granted a permanent interdict on the ground (1) that Notice R.571 was invalid as it had been issued before the commencement of Act 51 of 1965 on 1st July, 1969; (2) alternatively, that the Court had erred in not ordering oral evidence; and (3) that the Notice had declared no game to be a game of chance. This appeal was heard by a Full Bench and was dismissed. In a further appeal, with the leave of the Appellate Division,

Held, per RUMPFF, J.A. (POTGIETER, J.A., and JANSEN, J.A., concurring), that the facts disclosed that there were prima facie reasonable grounds for the suspicion required in section 42 of Act 56 of 1955.

Held, further, however, as it could not be said that for the functioning of sections 6 and 7 of Act 51 of 1965, a Notice of prohibition should be issued prior to the commencement of the Act, that Notice R.571 was invalid.

Held, further, as the validity of a statutory provision was in question, that the appellant was entitled to raise the question of the invalidity of the Notice in his reply in the Court of first instance.

Held, further, that the joinder of the Minister of Justice was not necessary.

The question whether the onus was on the appellant or on the respondent discussed but not decided.

Held, per TROLLIP, J.A. (WESSELS, J.A., and POTGIETER, J.A., concurring), that the initial onus was on the respondent to establish that the Police action was legally justified.

Held, further, as the appellant had waived the need for respondent to produce the original warrant, that secondary evidence of its contents was admissible.

Held, further, that while the warrant stood it was a good defence to appellant's claim: the ultimate onus was on the appellant to demolish the defence of the existence of the warrant.

Held, further, as the appellant had not proved in all the circumstances that it

1972 (1) SA p378

had a clear right not to be disturbed in its ownership or possession of the machines, that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

The decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division in Cresto Machines (Edms.) Bpk. v Die Afdeling Speuroffisier SA Polisie, Noord-Transvaal, 1970 (4) SA 350, confirmed. A

Case Information

Appèl teen 'n beslissing in die Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling (CILLIÈ, R.P., BEKKER, R., en RABIE, R.,). Die feite blyk uit die uitsprake en soos gerapporteer in 1970 (4) SA 350.

M. A. Rabie, namens die appellant: Die bewyslas om die bestaan van die B 'lasbrief' te bewys het derhalwe op die respondent berus. Hy het hom nie van die genoemde bewyslas gekwyt nie. Die Hof kan hom nie verlaat op 'n blote stelling van die respondent se gemagtigde nie. Die respondent moes die beste getuienis aangebied het, te wete die 'lasbrief' self, of moes andersins 'n...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 practice notes
31 cases
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT