Mzwinila strikes back
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has been accused of approaching the Court with “unclean hands” in its ongoing legal battle with former Minister of Lands and Water Affairs, Kefentse Mzwinila.
The dispute centres on the cessation and handover of Mzwinila’s properties to a receiver while corruption investigations continue.
In the Heads of Argument filed against the DPP’s ex parte application, Mzwinila’s lawyers argue that the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) unlawfully seized property in violation of existing court orders directing its return. They contend that instead of awaiting rulings before Justices Nyamadzabo and Maripe, the DPP initiated parallel proceedings in another forum, seeking similar relief under a different guise.
“Such conduct constitutes forum shopping and is inconsistent with the equitable basis upon which discretionary relief is sought. A litigant who remains in breach of court-sanctioned processes cannot, at the same time, seek the indulgence of this Honourable Court.”
Represented by Tebogo Sebego, Samuel B. Plaatjie, Kaelo Kgotla Taupedi, and Tlhalefo Mogomotsi, Mzwinila’s legal team contends that the Court has discretion to disapprove this conduct, to prevent abusive forum shopping, a multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments.
“A litigant who curates its case through selective disclosure, parallel proceedings, and procedural ambush cannot at the same time seek the Court’s indulgence. The application is accordingly vitiated by unclean hands and constitutes an abuse of process,” the lawyers argue.
The DPP is further accused of failing to disclose the existence of the pending proceedings, the prior seizures, and the extant disputes concerning the same assets when approaching Court.
This non-disclosure, Mzwinila’s lawyers argue, was material and deprived the Court of the opportunity to assess the matter on a fully informed basis.
The DPP’s conduct reflects a selective presentation of facts designed to curate a favourable narrative, which further taints the application and disentitles them to the relief sought.
According to the lawyers, the application is fatally defective for failure to disclose and engage with financial evidence seized by the Applicant and central to its own case. The lawyers argue that DPP’s case is premised on an alleged failure by the interested parties to account for the source of their assets.
“However, during the search and seizure operation conducted in June 2025, the DCEC seized extensive financial records and electronic devices belonging to the interested parties, including laptops containing complete financial data and accounting software used in the ordinary course of business.
The founding affidavit is silent on the seizure of this material and does not disclose whether the Applicant examined, audited, or assessed the financial information in its possession, nor whether any such assessment revealed unexplained or unlawful funds.”
It has been contended that the Applicant thus advances a case based on an alleged failure to account while withholding from the Court the fact that it already holds the very material necessary to conduct such an accounting.
“This omission is material. It undermines the factual basis for the relief sought and constitutes a failure of full and frank disclosure, particularly in proceedings brought on an urgent and ex parte basis.”
The lawyers submitted that the DPP has failed to provide compelling reasons why it cannot be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course, as required under Order 12 Rule 2 (2) of the Rules.
They argued that the allegation of dissipations is only levelled against the property and Boladu and not any other property, therefore, the DPP has failed to demonstrate reasons why it cannot be given a substantial redress at a hearing in due course against the properties which no allegation of dissipation is levelled against.