S v Oosthuizen

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Nicholas J and Philips AJ
• Judgment Date: 22 March 1982
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division
• Hearing Date: 22 March 1982
• Citation: 1982 (3) SA 571 (T)

Nicholas J:

The appellant (to whom I shall refer as 'the accused') appeared before the regional court in Johannesburg on a charge of A contravening s 2 (b) of Act 6 of 1958. It was alleged that during the period from July 1977 until December 1979 he paid one Broodryk, an official of the Meat Board, a sum of R25 000 as a gift or compensation with the object of persuading Broodryk to permit a company, Edmund Woodhouse (Pty) Ltd, and a partnership, William Bailie, to have more cattle slaughtered at the City Deep abattoir than the two firms were B entitled to. The accused pleaded not guilty but he was found guilty of having corruptly paid the sum of R18 000 to Broodryk. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. He now appeals against both the conviction and the sentence.

C The State called a number of wintesses. The accused did not give evidence in his own defence. It is unnecessary to refer to the evidence of all the State witnesses because the case for the State rests largely upon the evidence of Broodryk and of two police officers, Captain Victor and Lieutenant Delaporte.

In summary the evidence of these witnesses was the following.

D Broodryk had on 3 July 1980 been convicted in the regional court, Johannesburg, on his plea of guilty to receiving corruptly payments totalling R27 200. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, a sentence which he was serving at the time he gave his evidence. He was employed by the Meat Board from 1962 until the date of his dismissal in E December 1979. From 1977 until the termination of his employment he was control officer on the Witwatersrand. His duties were to exercise control over all cattle which were delivered inter alia at the City Deep abattoirs. He had to see to it that any handling agent acting on behalf of producers of slaughter cattle did not have more cattle slaughtered than the agent concerned was entitled to in terms of a quota for the F particular week or in terms of the permit issued to the producer concerned. At the end of the week the handling agent had to submit a settlement account, wherein was stated the number of cattle that had been slaughtered and, if the slaughter took place in terms of the permit, the permit number and the number of cattle which could be G slaughtered in accordance with the permit. At different times there were different systems in force. In the first instance there was what was called a full quota system, namely that delivery could be effected only in accordance with the quota allotted to a particular agent. Then there was a full permit system, according to which cattle could be slaughtered only if they were delivered in accordance with a particular permit. And thirdly there was a system according to which a percentage H of the market could be occupied by permits and the balance through quotas. The permits were issued direct to producers by the Meat Board in Pretoria and the agents had nothing to do with such issue.

Broodryk was responsible for working out the quota of each agent and informing him of what his quota was. Broodryk was also empowered to increase or to lower the quota of an agent depending upon what the market required. Furthermore Broodryk was in a position where he was entitled to accommodate one agent who had exceeded his quota by making arrangements with another agent who had not

reached his quota. The firms Edmund Woodhouse (Pty) Ltd and William Bailie were handling agents. The accused was the manager of Edmund Woodhouse and he was also the bookkeeper of Sa Meat Group which A consisted of William Bailie, Central Livestock and General Livestock.

Broodryk said in his evidence that during 1977 he was approached by the accused, who told him that he had a client on whose behalf he was very anxious to market cattle. His quota for the particular week was however B full and he asked if Broodryk could not allow the person concerned to market cattle over and above the quota. The accused offered him R100 if Broodryk admitted an additional 30 head of cattle. Broodryk said that he fell for the temptation and told the accused that he could introduce an additional 30 cattle. This was done and a few days afterwards the C accused gave to Broodryk the sum of R100 in cash. This was done at the accused's office. Thereafter the accused approached Broodryk from time to time with similar offers which he accepted and periodically Broodryk allowed the accused to introduce additional cattle to the market. Usually Broodryk received R100 for 30 cattle. All of the amounts were received in cash. Broodryk then went on to refer to an amount of R7 D 200 which he received from the accused. This was during 1978. The accused had spoken to Broodryk and told him that he wanted to be in a position where he could make his arrangements in advance. He accordingly offered to pay a sum of R7 200, against which Broodryk undertook to allow the appellant to introduce about 30 head of cattle per week. This E arrangement continued until December 1979. Broodryk said that in the beginning he kept monies received by him in a filing cabinet, but during 1978 he opened a banking account in which he deposited the amounts received from time to time. He applied the money inter alia to going with his wife on an overseas trip to Europe at a cost of some R5 000; he bought a new motor car for R8 100; he built a swimming bath and had F constructed a drive-way to his house for the sum of R1 250; and he constructed a double garage for the sum of R3 000. He said during the period from 1977 until he was dismissed by the Meat Board in 1979 he received from the accused's group, SA Meat, a total amount of R18 000. G Most of the money was handed over by the accused himself but he also received money from Mr Alf Shein, the manager of Bailie, Central Livestock and General Livestock, the members of SA Meat Group. Most of the money was received from the accused but he had not kept a record of how much was received respectively from Shein and the accused. In regard to the R18 000, he did keep a record on folio sheets of the amounts H received from agents but at the time of his arrest he panicked and destroyed such sheets. Broodryk went on to say that, in regard to the cattle which he allowed to be delivered to the abattoirs in excess of quotas and permits, he simply kept quiet about them in his returns to the Meat Board. His salary at all material times from the Meat Board was R750 per month. He was not entitled to receive the monies which were paid to him by the accused and other agents.

Lieutenant Delaporte said in his evidence that he was a lieutenant in

the South African Police and a member of the Criminal Investigation A Department attached to the Fraud Branch in Johannesburg. He was originally the investigating officer in this case. As a result of his enquiries he went on the evening of 8 January 1980 at about 9 pm to the accused's flat. There he met the accused and informed him who he was and stated that he was investigating a case of corruption against the accused. He then arrested him and requested him to come to John Vorster B Square. Shortly afterwards Captain Victor of the South African Police, who had been sitting in his car outside the block of flats, came in. After a little delay, Delaporte, accompanied by the accused, went to John Vorster Square. Captain Victor went in his own car. Arriving at John Vorster Square, they went to Victor's office, namely room 311. C There Victor warned the appellant in accordance with the Judges' rules. He told him what the charge was and said that the accused was not obliged to say anything. The accused sat quietly for a moment. He appeared to Delaporte to be somewhat nervous but he was sober and in his sound and sober senses. After a while the accused stated that he was in an embarrassing position but that he had in fact handed money to Mr D Broodryk in order to obtain quotas so that he would be entitled to deliver more cattle to the abattoir than he was entitled to. The accused mentioned an amount of R25 000 as the approximate amount which he had handed over to Broodryk. Captain Victor...