Rudolph and Another v Commissioner for Inland Revenue and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Corbett CJ, Smalberger JA, Vivier JA, Nienaber JA and Plewman AJA
• Judgment Date: 25 March 1996
• Citation: 1996 (2) SA 886 (A)
• Docket Number: 503/94
• Hearing Date: 12 March 1996
• Counsel: G J Marcus for the appellants. H Shakenovsky SC (with him J J le Roux) for the respondents.
• Court: Appellate Division

C Plewman AJA:

On 22 March 1995 this Court made an order in terms of s 102(6) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 referring this case to the Constitutional Court. The reasons were to be filed later. These are the reasons for the order.

D The first appellant, a businessman, and the second appellant, a company of which the first appellant is the sole director, applied on motion to the Court below for interdicts restraining the respondents, the Commissioner for Inland Revenue (the 'Commissioner') and seven of his officials, from exercising the powers of search given to the Commissioner by s 74(3) of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (the 'Act').

E The facts are that first appellant had, during the years 1988 to 1992, failed to render proper returns of his income for income tax purposes. He had also failed, despite numerous promises to do so, to remedy this situation. Such information as he had given to the Commissioner indicated that his financial affairs and those of certain of the companies and trusts in which he was interested were in a state of F confusion.

On 20 October 1993 a Mr C T Prinsloo, Chief Director of Administration in the service of the Department of Finance, who acted as the head of what is described as 'Afdeling Spesiale Ondersoeke by die Tak Binnelandse Inkomste', issued 14 authorisations in terms of s 74(3) of the Act to a number of named officials of the G Revenue Department, including the second to eighth respondents, authorising them to exercise, in relation to the appellants and various other of the first appellant's companies and trusts, the powers prescribed in the section. Acting under these authorisations certain of the Commissioner's officials interviewed the first H appellant at his house on 21 October 1993 and seized a number of documents.

The information thus obtained was not sufficient to enable the Commissioner to unravel first appellant's affairs. On 21 April 1994 the Commissioner received information that a large quantity of additional documents relating to the first appellant's affairs were to be located at the place of business of one of the first appellant's companies in Parktown, Johannesburg. On the following day, Friday, 22 I April 1994, members of the investigating team went to this place and, acting under the authority of the original written authorisations, searched for and found a mass of...