Introduction

[1]           The applicants lodged an application on 08 April 2014 on an urgent basis which came before me on 11 April 2014.  They seek an order for payment of living expenses against assets restrained in terms of a provisional order granted ex parte  by this Court, per Traverso DJP on 12 December 2008 and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal (on petition) on 28 November 2012.  That order was granted in terms section 26 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act[1] (‘POCA’). The living expenses sought to be paid are as follows:

1.1              Travel costs of R30 000;

1.2              Removal costs of R130 000;

1.3              Salaries outstanding to farm employees at R110 500;

1.4              Relocation of farm employees and their movables at R30 000; and

1.5              Monthly living expenses of R60 800 per month with effect from 01 April 2014.

[2]           The second respondent (‘NDPP’) filed a separate application in terms of Rule 33(4) of the Uniform Rules raising a question of law and seeking declaration that such point of law be decided separately. The legal issue raised by the NDPP is whether the applicants have sufficient interest in the property to which their application relates, to seek the relief they do.

[3]           In the alternative the NDPP seeks the Court to postpone the matter to a date determined by the Court subject to an agreed timetable for filing of answering papers on the merits of the case. A similar request was made by the first respondent (‘curator bonis/ curator’) who filed an affidavit stating that he required time to deal in detail with the allegations raised by the applicants in their affidavit, but nevertheless placed some facts before the Court which he alleges were recently and co-incidentally disclosed by his investigations, which appear to undermine the allegations made by the applicants. The curator bonis also filed another affidavit, upon the request of the NDPP, to advise on what assets were currently under curatorship pursuant to the restraint order of 12 December 2008. I deal with that issue later on in this judgment.   

[4]           At the hearing of this matter, Counsel for the applicants advised the Court that he was in agreement that the point of law raised by the NDPP should be heard and determined first. I adopted that approach as I found it to be the most appropriate for purposes of convenience and expediency.   Parties were therefore required to address me on two issues, which were urgency and applicants’ entitlement to the relief sought (i.e. the point of law). I first deal with the point of law but before I do so, it is important to  briefly set out factual background to this application.