The National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) has got court backing to seize a Florida Road property where cannabis dealing had been taking place between 2022 and 2023.
The South Gauteng High Court rejected the property owner Tyrrel Venter (first respondent) claims that he was not a cannabis dealer but that his tenants may have been. The court found the circumstances of the case justified the West Rand property being confiscated in terms of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act (POCA).
Judge D Mahosi handed down his judgement, (CASE NO: 037201/2024 available on the South African Legal Information Institute website) on 23 September 2025 ,upholding the NDPP’s right to seize the property in Florida Road, Roodepoort, and dismissed Venter’s objections on the basis of an NDPP affidavit.
The affidavit said that the Florida Rd property was used by its tenants as a base for ‘the dealing in narcotics’. It said that in January 2022, ‘Operation Dragoon’ was initiated which included several police operations, including surveillance and information from confidential sources, indicating a high frequency of short-duration visits to the premises at all hours, consistent with drug trafficking”.
Sgt Petrus van der Linde led the intelligence-gathering investigation, which “uncovered ongoing drug dealing, specifically cannabis, by an individual named Brian Matemela.”
The NDPP said: “An undercover agent successfully made a controlled purchase of cannabis from Matemela for R400. The property featured controlled access and a high boundary wall. Following the controlled buy, search and arrest warrants were issued and executed on 24 May 2022. Although Matemela was not present during the raid, the first respondent was present, and the police warned him of the illegal activities taking place on the property”.
It continued: “Nevertheless, the illegal activities persisted at the property. Between July and October 2022, at least three arrests were made for narcotics possession linked to the property. On 27 October 2022, Sergeant Van der Linde and colleagues served the respondents with a written warning advising of the continued illegal activities and warning them to cease them. However, the drug-related offences continued, resulting in several arrests from November 2022 to October 2023.”
The NPDD argued that the Venters, in their pleadings, did not squarely engage with the detailed allegation of police surveillance.
“Instead, they deny that the tenants are drug dealers because the latter assured them they are not. They confirm that the police advised them of the suspected drug activity on the property. They state that, upon advice, they warned the tenants and threatened them with eviction. They contend that the applicant has provided no proof of drug dealing and argue that even if the tenants were dealers, their activities do not render the property itself illegal.”
Judge Mahosi said he had to determine two issues:
· The first was whether it was appropriate for the NDPP to approach the Court on an ex parte basis for the preservation order;
· The second was whether, on the evidence, there were and are reasonable grounds to believe that the property was an “instrumentality of an offence referred to in Schedule 1 of POCA.”
“Concerning the issue of whether reasonable grounds exist to believe that the property is an instrumentality of an offence referred to in Schedule 1 of POCA, I am satisfied that the NDPP has met the required threshold for a preservation order” declared the judge.
“The detailed evidence of surveillance, the pattern of visitor traffic, and the two arrests linked directly to the property provide ample foundation for a reasonable belief that the property is being used as a nodal point for drug distribution. This evidence is not mere suspicion or conjecture. It is concrete, albeit circumstantial, evidence from an experienced law enforcement officer.
He went on to say “The respondents’ argument is unconvincing for several reasons. Their denial relies on the assurances of their tenants, which are self-serving and carry little weight compared to the objective evidence provided by the police. Additionally, their claim that there is no “proof” demonstrates a misunderstanding of the legal standard. The NDPP is not required to prove its case at this stage conclusively. It only needs to demonstrate reasonable grounds for belief. The evidence presented clearly meets this established standard.
Judge Mahosi said “Furthermore, the respondents’ argument that the tenants’ activities do not render the property illegal is a misinterpretation of the law. The POCA does not declare property “illegal”; instead, it allows for civil forfeiture if the property is deemed an “instrumentality” of crime. It is the functional use of the property as a drug depot that brings it within the scope of the Act, rather than the personal culpability of the owners. In this context, the property, not the owner, is the respondent in rem.
He said the Venter’s actions upon being informed by the police of the operation “were, however “commendable”.
He said: “They may well form the basis of a powerful “innocent owner” defence at the forfeiture stage in terms of section 52 of POCA. However, for this interim preservation order, their personal innocence is not a bar. The focus remains squarely on the use of the property itself. The evidence establishes a reasonable belief that the property was used as an instrumentality of drug dealing.”
To this end he issued the High Court order dismissing the Venter’s application against the NDPP’s preservation order which had been granted on 11 April 2024 and granted it in terms of of section 38 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 .
He said the “costs of “his application shall be costs in the forfeiture application”.
#
