The controversial Kgori Capital asset manager, Bakang Seretse wants the court to protect him from what he alleges is uncalled for behaviour from the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Seretse, who on Friday told the court that he is currently on the streets due to his property being put under judicial restraint, is demanding it back explaining that what DPP did was a clear eviction.
The house was last week seized and put under judicial restraint by the Directorate of Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) with the help of the DPP. The house is one of the many assets seized under the investigation for allegedly having been bought by the proceeds of crime involving millions of pula that went missing from the National Petroleum Fund (NPF). Through his lawyer, Seretse approached the Court of Appeal on urgency seeking to stay the order that was issued against his house.
In his grounds, he says the court should protect him while he seeks other remedies to the situation and be allowed back into his house.
Kgosietsile Ngakaagae during submissions said there were no other remedies that they could have done to contain the situation because the order obtained by the DPP was final.
He explained that the order was obtained as an eax parte and it was with immediate effect meaning his client was kicked out into the streets without prior notice.
“The order had no return date and my client was given only 48 hours to vacant the house without any prior notice,” he said.
Ngakaagae said it was the duty of the court to protect his client from being on the streets while they opt for other remedies that could aid his return into the house, as its rightful owner.
He also said there was evidence that the house was legit as it was bought through the bank and as it stands there was nothing linking it to being bought with proceeds of crime.
However, the DPP begged to differ on the order being final and the applicant seeking to stay it.
Prosecutor, Ernest Mosate said Seretse had no right being at the CoA as the matter was still at the High Court.
He explained that there was no truth in the order being final as it was only obtained as a temporary preservative.
“They should go back to the court where the case is pending and seek other remedies like recession of the order, they should challenge the order there not here,” he said. He said there was enough reason for the house to be investigated as it was bought, then demolished and built with proceeds from crime. The ruling will be delivered on February 15, 2019.