Meyers and Another v Triegaardt, NO

JurisdictionSouth Africa
JudgeLucas AJ
Judgment Date24 August 1948
Citation1948 (4) SA 208 (W)
Hearing Date24 August 1948
CourtWitwatersrand Local Division

Lucas, A.J.:

The applicant purchased a motor-car from one Nieuwoudt, who was subsequently charged with the crime of murder of Bruce, from whom he obtained the car. For the purposes of the trial of Nieuwoudt the car was taken from the petitioners and used as an exhibit. The ownership of the car was not an issue to be decided in the murder case. When the trial was completed no application was made to the Court for the return of the car to the applicants, but subsequently, the trial having taken place at the end of April and the beginning of May, on the day after the trial the applicants applied to the police for the return of the car. The reply of the police was that, the trial having been completed, they had no power to act further in the matter. Thereupon, on 10th May, the petitioners applied to the Registrar of this Court for the return of the car but were advised that no action could be taken in the matter. Thereafter, on 9th June, the petitioners applied to the Secretary for Justice, under sec. 366 (1) of the Criminal

Lucas AJ

Procedure Code, for the car to be handed over to the applicants. The Secretary for Justice said:

'The Department has inquired into the matter, but the Crown Prosecutor is of the opinion that according to the evidence produced there was no doubt that the car in question was stolen and that it belonged to the deceased Douglas Bruce, and he accordingly considers that it should be retained by the Registrar pending an order of Court. In these circumstances it is regretted that the Department can give no directions in the matter.'

Thereafter, this month, the petitioners filed their petition in this Court for an order that the motor-car be returned to them.

Sec. 366 (1) has been considered in a number of cases, particularly in the case of Rex v Tutu (1943, E.D.L. 49). In that case it was held that the onus of proving that the property in question should not be returned to the applicant, from whom it had been taken, lay with the person resisting the return. Sec. 366 (1) lays down provisions for two cases. The first is when an application is made after the conclusion of the trial for the return to the person entitled thereto of the property in respect of which the offence was committed, or of any property seized or taken under the Act or produced at the trial. No such application was made in the present case. The applicants were not parties to the case for which the car had been taken. The applicants claim that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • S v Cocklin en 'n Ander
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...nie ingevolge die bepalings van art. 347 (1) van Ord. 34 van 1963 C (S.W.A.), soos gewysig. Sien Meyers and Another v Triegaardt, N.O., 1948 (4) SA 208; R. v Manyane, 1950 (2) SA 69; S. v Ngubenkomo, 1968 (2) SA op bl. 110C - D. Art. 347 (1) is nie bedoel om 'n addisionele straf op 'n besku......
  • S v Ramos
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...(O): referred to Fazenda NO v Commissioner of Customs and Excise 1999 (3) SA 452 (T): referred to Meyers and Another v Triegaardt NO 1948 (4) SA 208 (W): Minister van Wet en Orde en 'n Ander v Datnis Motors (Midlands) (Edms) Bpk 1989 (1) SA 926 (A): dictum at 935F - G applied R v Anthony 19......
  • S v Cocklin en 'n Ander
    • South Africa
    • Appellate Division
    • 26 May 1971
    ...nie ingevolge die bepalings van art. 347 (1) van Ord. 34 van 1963 C (S.W.A.), soos gewysig. Sien Meyers and Another v Triegaardt, N.O., 1948 (4) SA 208; R. v Manyane, 1950 (2) SA 69; S. v Ngubenkomo, 1968 (2) SA op bl. 110C - D. Art. 347 (1) is nie bedoel om 'n addisionele straf op 'n besku......
  • Minister van Wet en Orde en 'n Ander v Datnis Motors (Midlands) (Edms) Bpk
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...AR. E P A Hattingh SC (met hom J J Wessels ) namens die appellant het na die volgende gesag verwys: Meyers and Another v Triegaardt NO 1948 (4) SA 208 (W); R v Williams 1957 (1) PH H92; S v Ngubenkomo 1968 (2) SA 109 (OK); Lenz Township Co (Pty) Ltd v Administrator, Transvaal, and Others 19......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • S v Cocklin en 'n Ander
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...nie ingevolge die bepalings van art. 347 (1) van Ord. 34 van 1963 C (S.W.A.), soos gewysig. Sien Meyers and Another v Triegaardt, N.O., 1948 (4) SA 208; R. v Manyane, 1950 (2) SA 69; S. v Ngubenkomo, 1968 (2) SA op bl. 110C - D. Art. 347 (1) is nie bedoel om 'n addisionele straf op 'n besku......
  • S v Ramos
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...(O): referred to Fazenda NO v Commissioner of Customs and Excise 1999 (3) SA 452 (T): referred to Meyers and Another v Triegaardt NO 1948 (4) SA 208 (W): Minister van Wet en Orde en 'n Ander v Datnis Motors (Midlands) (Edms) Bpk 1989 (1) SA 926 (A): dictum at 935F - G applied R v Anthony 19......
  • S v Cocklin en 'n Ander
    • South Africa
    • Appellate Division
    • 26 May 1971
    ...nie ingevolge die bepalings van art. 347 (1) van Ord. 34 van 1963 C (S.W.A.), soos gewysig. Sien Meyers and Another v Triegaardt, N.O., 1948 (4) SA 208; R. v Manyane, 1950 (2) SA 69; S. v Ngubenkomo, 1968 (2) SA op bl. 110C - D. Art. 347 (1) is nie bedoel om 'n addisionele straf op 'n besku......
  • Minister van Wet en Orde en 'n Ander v Datnis Motors (Midlands) (Edms) Bpk
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...AR. E P A Hattingh SC (met hom J J Wessels ) namens die appellant het na die volgende gesag verwys: Meyers and Another v Triegaardt NO 1948 (4) SA 208 (W); R v Williams 1957 (1) PH H92; S v Ngubenkomo 1968 (2) SA 109 (OK); Lenz Township Co (Pty) Ltd v Administrator, Transvaal, and Others 19......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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