Case Summary: Special Investigating Unit and Another v Zibani and Others

Special Investigating Unit and Another v Zibani and Others

URL

https://lawlibrary.org.za/za/judgment/special-tribunal-south-africa/2022/30

Citations

(GP 15 of 2020) [2022] ZAST 30

Date of judgment

4 May 2022

Keyword(s):1

Damages, fraudulent schemes

Case type2

Civil trial

Result

The plaintiffs succeeded in establishing on a balance of probabilities that the defendants’ actions supported the fraudulent schemes.

Flynote3

Special Investigation Units and Special Tribunals - maladministration of State institutions – fraudulent schemes – law of evidence – balance of probabilities

Legislation and International Instruments4

• Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act 74 of 1996 (sections 3(2) and 8(2))

• Law of Evidence Act 45 of 1998 (section 3)

Cases cited as authority5

• Take & Save Trading CC and Others v The Standard Bank of SA Ltd 2004 (4) SA 1 (SCA)

• Ferreira v Levin NO and Another 1996 [2] SA 621 (CC)

• Public Protector South Africa v South African Reserve Bank 2019 (6) SA 423 (CC)

• Vassen v Law Society of the Cape 1992 [4] 534 (SCA)

Facts6

The plaintiffs sought to claim damages from the defendants relating to two fraudulent schemes designed by the first defendant. The fraudulent schemes resulted in the payment of monies by the office of the State Attorney to the defendants based on fraudulent invoices for services which were not rendered. The trial proceeded in the defendants’ absence due to the defendants’ failure to comply with the tribunal rules and to appear for the trial.

Summary7

The Tribunal was required to determine whether, on a balance of probabilities, the plaintiffs were able to establish that the first defendant had masterminded the two schemes to defraud the office of the State Attorney. The Tribunal was also required to determine whether the second, third and fourth defendants were complicit in the commission of the fraudulent schemes.

Decision/ Judgment8

The Tribunal found that, on a balance of probabilities, the plaintiffs succeeded in establishing that the first defendant had masterminded the two fraudulent schemes and that the second, third and fourth defendants were complicit in the commission of the fraudulent schemes. In addition to the respective damages payable by each of the defendants, the Tribunal awarded costs against all the defendants on a punitive scale due to the circumstances under which the fraud was committed, namely, by an officer of the court and that the conduct of all the defendants was found to be exceptionally vexatious and dishonest.

Basis of the decision9

The plaintiffs successfully established on a balance of probabilities that the defendants had committed the fraudulent acts as alleged, by presenting the required evidence of witnesses, analysis and findings. The trial proceeded on a default basis as a result of the defendant’s failure to comply with tribunal processes and appear before the tribunal as required.

Reported by

Date

African Legal Information Institute (AfricanLII)

8 May 2022