BontHuys Attorneys

24/12/2025

Merry Christmas from Bonthuys Attorneys Inc.

As we reflect on the year that has passed, we extend our sincere gratitude to our clients, colleagues, and community for your trust and support.

May this festive season bring you peace, rest, and renewed hope, and may the year ahead be filled with clarity, stability, and prosperity.
We wish you and your loved ones a blessed and joyful Christmas.

Warm regards,
Bonthuys Attorneys Inc.

19/08/2025

SIX ACCUSED ALLEGEDLY INVOLVED IN THE RHINO HORN TRAFFICKING SYNDICATE APPEARED IN COURT

Six accused persons who are alleged to be involved in the rhino trafficking syndicate, John Frederick Hume (83), Former founder and owner of the Platinum Rhino Conservation Enterprise. Clive John Mervan Melville (63), Transport Maintenance Manager. Izak Hermanus Du Toit (50) Practicing attorney. Elizabeth Catharina Van Niekerk (58), Director of a non-profit organisation. Mattheus Hendrikus Wessels Poggenpoel (37), Insurance Broker and part time farmer and Johannes Abraham Hennop (52) Game Reserve Manager were all granted bail by the Pretoria Magistrates court.

Hume was granted R100 000 bail, Melville and Van Niekerk were each granted R10 000 bail while Hermanus Du Toit, Poggenpoel and Hennop were each granted R20 00 bail.

They are collectively facing a total of 55 charges of multiple counts of racketeering, fraud, contravention of the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (NAMBA), contravention of contravention of Riotous Assemblies Act, theft and money laundering
It is alleged that between 2017 and 2024, the accused operated an international rhino horn trafficking syndicate and defrauded the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment (DFFE). They allegedly obtained permits to trade rhino horn locally, while intending to channel the horns into illegal international markets in Southeast Asia. The fraudulent scheme is estimated to involve 964 rhino horns valued at R250 million.
After intensive investigations by the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation’s (DPCI) Wildlife Trafficking Section of the Serious Organised Crime Investigation Unit, based at national headquarters, the six handed themselves over at the Pretoria Central Police Station on 19 August 2025, where they were formally arrested.

During bail proceedings, they all asked to be released on bail because they are not flight risk, they cooperated with the police investigations. Through their affidavits accused no 2 Melville disclosed to the court that he has 2019 previous conviction fraud and being in possession and transporting Rhino horns where he was sentenced to pay a fine. Accused no 5 Poggenpoel also disclosed to the court that he has 2009 previous conviction of possession of a Rhino horn where he paid an admission of guilt fee of R2500. Poggenpoel also disclosed that he has a pending case that will be appearing on 17 September 2025 at Winburg Magistrates’ Court because during the visit to his residence, the investigation team found ammunition that was not locked away in a safe and supposedly scheduled medicine without a permit.

The state, Advocate Patsy Jacobs read into the record an affidavit by the investigating officer Edward Du Plessis, confirming that the State did not oppose bail as the accused were not flight risks, their addresses had been verified, and they had cooperated with investigators. The State, however, requested bail conditions.

The court granted bail with the following conditions:
All accused must surrender their passports and may not apply for new travel documents while the matter is pending.
They must report to their nearest police station once a week.
They may not interfere with investigations, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses.
They must not commit any offences while on bail.

The matter was postponed to 09 December 2025 in Court 16 for further investigations.

Issued by
Lumka Mahanjana
NPA Regional Spokesperson
Gauteng Division: Pretoria
and

Lieutenant Colonel
Christopher Singo
DPCI Spokespers

28/04/2025

LIFTING THE CORPORATE VEIL OF A COMPANY TO HOLD LIABLE THE DIRECTORS OF A COMPANY WHOSE JURISTIC PERSONALITY WAS ABUSED TO SWINDLE UNSUSPECTING CREDITORS

Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22

The court refused to lift the corporate veil & remarked that mere ownership or control of a company, without some form of fraud, sham, or improper conduct, is not sufficient to disregard the separate legal personality of a corporation.

14/03/2025

26/02/2025

What is the purpose of commissioning documents?
The purpose of commissioning a document or affidavit is for the commissioner to firstly verify the identity of the person signing, secondly to confirm that the person signing the document is aware and understands the content of the said document and thirdly to confirm that the said document was signed in his or her presence, in confirming this the commissioner will add his or her signature or seal to the document.

Signing in the presence of the commissioner.
In a recent court case Firstrand Bank Limited v Jacques Louis Briedenhann, the High Court was faced with the decision of whether an affidavit signed by means of a video conference still complied with the Regulations set out in the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act 16 of 1963 (Act), since the Regulations state that a declaration must be made in the presence of a commissioner.

The court held that: “the expression ‘in the presence of’ within its context in regulation 3(1), requires that the deponent to an affidavit takes the oath and signs the declaration in physical proximity to the commissioner. The regulation does not therefore cover such deposition in the ‘virtual presence’ of a commissioner”.

The court also held that as a general rule South African law does not condone the virtual commissioning of documents, however in the case of ED Food S.R.L v Africa’s Best (Pty) Ltd [2024] ZAGPJHC 1619 the court was required to interpret the Act broadly and held that courts should: “open themselves to the modern trend of technology”.

In the case of VJS v SH [2024] ZAWCHC 333 (22 October 2024), wherein the Applicant working and residing in Pakistan signed an affidavit by means of a video conference call via Zoom with the Commissioner of Oaths of the Republic of South Africa as well as the legal representative of the Applicant. The Court was required to determine whether the Regulations were met for the affidavit to be valid and acceptable to the court.

The court held that the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act was passed over 60 years ago and at the time the idea of video conferencing and the internet was not foreseen, the court also held that that legislation must be brought up to date with the current times and the relevant amendments should be made to ‘modernise’ the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act and Regulations to make provision for signing and commissioning of affidavits electronically, since it is very time-consuming and costly to have affidavits signed and commissioned in wet ink outside of the Republic of South Africa, the Court added that by including these provisions for electronic commissioning and signing of affidavits, civil litigation will be faster and more cost effective. The court proceeded to accept the affidavit signed and commissioned electronically.

Conclusion.
Taking the above into consideration, it is safe to conclude that until such a time that the necessary amendments to the current case law is made, the discretion will remain with the court based on the facts presented.