In a recent judgment, Judge Michael Leburu said it was a fallacy for the State to say the funds being interest from the funds taken from Seretse and his companies Khulaco (Pty) Ltd, M & B Properties (Pty) Ltd belonged to the bank not him to play claim to it. “The respondent has strenuously submitted that the restraint funds are owned by the bank whereat they were kept, in terms of banking law. Whilst this submission may be appealing at first blush, and within the rubric of classical banking law, such proposition is untenable,” he said. Leburu posed questions to the State as to, “why did the bank lay supine and or fiddled when "Rome was burning", and when its moneys were subject to a civil forfeiture? Why did the said bank not enter the legal fray and put up a virilis defensio, or a strong defence, and contend that such moneys belonged to it?
In his orders directing the State to pay back the money to Seretse, he said it explains the fallacy of the AG’s submission on ownership of the money by the bank “Respondent has also argued that the restrained funds belonged to government. It is baffling as to how an owner of property can bring a civil forfeiture application before the High Court, and ask that its property should be forfeited under the PICA,” wondered the judge.
