In a judgment issued on April 16, 2025, Gaborone High Court judge, Michael Leburu, ruled that Seretse and his companies, Khulaco (Pty) Ltd and M&B Properties (Pty) Ltd, have made out a case that interest accrued from the said restrained funds is payable to them and not to the Receiver like the State had argued. "In the final analysis, once the restrained property is released to its owner, or lawful holder, any interest accrued whilst the property was still under attachment, pending finalisation of the civil forfeiture application by the court, is payable and returnable to the owner of the property or to the person from whom the said property was taken from," stated Leburu. The judgment comes after the three applicants, Khulaco, M&B Properties, and Seretse filed Notice of Motion seeking about P50 million from interest accumulated from the restrained funds.
In Seretse's founding affidavit as the director and controlling mind of the two companies he sought a number of prayers. He is seeking that the respondents (one being the Attorney General) be declared to have preserved the value of the money that was seized and held by them from the applicants, the respondents be ordered to pay to the applicants the sum of P50,293,738.10; and the respondents ordered to pay to the applicants' interest on the sum at the rate of 10% per annum, and lastly the costs of the suit on attorney and own client scale. Justice Leburu agreed with the applicants that in keeping with the primary prescripts of the Proceeds and Instruments of Crime Act (PICA), if an interim restraining order is ultimately discharged, the restrained property reverts to its owner or from whom the property was seized from. The judge stated that this was in sync with Section 8 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to property and any interest or profit generated by the restrained property is the property of the owner of the restrained property or the lawful holder of such property. "If the Legislature, in its usual wisdom, had intended that any interest generated from restrained funds, which are subsequently released to the owner, is to be forfeited to the State, such clear expression could have been espoused in the PICA. It is only the forfeited property, in terms of Section 29 of the PICA, that vests in the Government," he explained.
