Western Cape High Court overturns fraud convictions against Good Hope Construction sole member
Image: File
Ridwaan Rajah, the sole member of Good Hope Plasterers CC trading as Good Hope Construction, has been acquitted of fraud, theft, and perjury following an appeal to the Western Cape High Court. The judgment, delivered on 12 September 2024, set aside the earlier convictions handed down by the Bellville Specialised Commercial Crimes Court.
According to court papers, the charges stem from a 2010 contract between Good Hope Construction and the National Department of Public Works (DPW) to renovate buildings in the parliamentary precinct.
As part of the project, Good Hope Construction appointed Winlite Aluminium Windows and Doors as a subcontractor to construct four curtain screens. The DPW agreed to make an advance payment of R519,037.90 for materials to be held offsite by Winlite, subject to a guarantee being provided.
Court records show that Winlite was paid R467,131.11 by Good Hope Construction, with a 10% retention applied in line with common building industry practice. However, Winlite failed to complete the work and was subsequently liquidated.
The DPW later omitted the advance payment from the final statement of account. In 2015, Good Hope Construction approached the High Court to compel the DPW to include the advance in the final account. The court granted the order by agreement, and the DPW paid the outstanding amount.
Following a Special Investigating Unit (SIU) probe under Presidential Proclamation R54 of 2014, criminal charges were brought against Rajah and his company. The State alleged that Rajah misrepresented facts in the affidavit submitted during the civil application and that the second payment constituted theft.
According to the High Court judgment, the State's case relied heavily on the testimony of the SIU's forensic investigator, Samuel Adams, who later conceded under cross-examination that a key invoice (Exhibit V) confirmed the payment had indeed been for materials held offsite. Adams also testified that, had he been aware of this invoice earlier, the investigation would not have proceeded.
The High Court found that the State had failed to call witnesses with direct knowledge of the final account or to provide evidence proving criminal intent.
It further noted that the DPW had not opposed the 2015 application and had agreed to the payment, which was legally ordered by the High Court. The court ruled that the retention of 10% by the contractor was in line with the subcontract agreement and not unlawful.
The judgment emphasised that the Regional Court had misdirected itself by failing to consider the full evidentiary context and by relying on incorrect assumptions about contractual obligations and construction industry norms.
The appeal court concluded that the State had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the versions presented by the appellants were reasonably possibly true.
The appeal was upheld and all convictions were set aside.
Weekend Argus
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
Western Cape High Court overturns fraud convictions against Good Hope Construction sole member
Ridwaan Rajah has been acquitted of charges against him Image: File Ridwaan Rajah, the sole member of Good Hope Plasterers CC trading as Good Hope Construction, has been acquitted of fraud, theft, and perjury following an appeal to the Western Cape High Court. The judgment, delivered on 12 September 2024, set aside the earlier convictions handed down by the Bellville Specialised Commercial Crimes Court. According to court papers, the charges stem from a 2010 contract between Good Hope Construction and the National Department of Public Works (DPW) to renovate buildings in the parliamentary precinct. As part of the project, Good Hope Construction appointed Winlite Aluminium Windows and Doors as a subcontractor to construct four curtain screens. The DPW agreed to make an advance payment of R519,037.90 for materials to be held offsite by Winlite, subject to a guarantee being provided. Court records show that Winlite was paid R467,131.11 by Good Hope Construction, with a 10% retention applied in line with common building industry practice. However, Winlite failed to complete the work and was subsequently liquidated. The DPW later omitted the advance payment from the final statement of account. In 2015, Good Hope Construction approached the High Court to compel the DPW to include the advance in the final account. The court granted the order by agreement, and the DPW paid the outstanding amount. Following a Special Investigating Unit (SIU) probe under Presidential Proclamation R54 of 2014, criminal charges were brought against Rajah and his company. The State alleged that Rajah misrepresented facts in the affidavit submitted during the civil application and that the second payment constituted theft. According to the High Court judgment, the State's case relied heavily on the testimony of the SIU's forensic investigator, Samuel Adams, who later conceded under cross-examination that a key invoice (Exhibit V) confirmed the payment had indeed been for materials held offsite. Adams also testified that, had he been aware of this invoice earlier, the investigation would not have proceeded. The High Court found that the State had failed to call witnesses with direct knowledge of the final account or to provide evidence proving criminal intent. It further noted that the DPW had not opposed the 2015 application and had agreed to the payment, which was legally ordered by the High Court. The court ruled that the retention of 10% by the contractor was in line with the subcontract agreement and not unlawful. The judgment emphasised that the Regional Court had misdirected itself by failing to consider the full evidentiary context and by relying on incorrect assumptions about contractual obligations and construction industry norms. The appeal court concluded that the State had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the versions presented by the appellants were reasonably possibly true. The appeal was upheld and all convictions were set aside. Weekend Argus
The South African
2 days ago
- The South African
Limpopo pig farmer's trial postponed as accused turns witness
The High Court in Polokwane postponed the trial of three men to Thursday. The state accuses them of murdering two women and dumping their bodies in a pigsty on a Limpopo farm. Limpopo pig farmer Zachariah Olivier, farm supervisor Rudolph de Wet, and Zimbabwean national William Musora face charges of murder, attempted murder, defeating the ends of justice, illegal possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. Musora faces an additional charge under the Immigration Act. The state alleges the men shot and killed Maria Makgato and Lucia Ndlovu in August last year at Onverwacht farm, outside Polokwane. A third woman reportedly escaped. The victims had allegedly gone to the farm to collect expired food for the pigs. According to the prosecution, the accused dumped the women's bodies in a pigsty, where the pigs consumed them. During brief court proceedings on Monday, 20-year-old De Wet, a supervisor on the farm, turned state witness under Section 204. His lawyer, Muhammed Farouk Valjee, told the court that De Wet will testify that Olivier fatally shot the women and forced him, under duress, to dispose of their bodies. The state is expected to withdraw charges against De Wet once he gives his testimony. Olivier and Musora, aged 60 and 50 respectively, remain in custody and have yet to enter their pleas. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Daily Maverick
3 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Can hate speech be defended as freedom of religion? Court to decide in LGBTQ discrimination case
A Gqeberha shop owner who put up a sign banning LGBTQIA+ patrons and ran an anti-LGBTQ WhatsApp group is at the centre of a landmark hate speech case. While he claims religious freedom, the Human Rights Commission argues that his conduct incites violence and violates the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act. The High Court has called for further submissions. The court battle between the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and Gqeberha businessman Dawood Lagardien, accused of promoting hate speech by refusing to serve members of the LGBTQIA+ community, continues in the city's high court, where the presiding officer has called for supplementary submissions from both sides. While the latest court appearance took place last week, the matter dates back to mid-2023 when photographs started circulating of a chalkboard outside La Gardi Catering Plastics in Parkside. Shop owner Dawood Lagardien wrote: 'LGBTQ not welcome at La Gardi – Save our children'. Shortly thereafter it came to light that Lagardien was also the administrator of a WhatsApp chat group called Our rights – antiLGBTQ+. The SAHRC took the matter to court, claiming that Lagardien was in violation of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (Pepuda) and actively promoting hate speech and discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation. 'The commission submits that the impugned conduct – the establishment of a WhatsApp group and putting up of the sign outside the shop – constitutes hate speech. In this regard it must be recalled that the respondent has admitted to putting up the sign and establishing the WhatsApp group, so it is common cause that impugned conduct is attributable to him,' the SAHRC's heads of argument read. It further argued that Lagardien's sign offered no reasons for banning people from his shop and simply promoted discrimination. The commission also quoted messages shared on Lagardien's WhatsApp group, claiming clear Pepuda violations, hate speech and incitement to violence. One message read: 'LGBTQ is a blatant attack on Islam. Force is the only option… If only I had a powerful group to crush these sodomists […] and crush these evil vermin from.' As part of its claim, the SAHRC calls on Lagardien to issue a public apology to the LGBTQIA+ community and damages in the amount of R500,000 be paid to an NGO yet to be identified. In his responding documents, Lagardien does not deny putting up the sign or starting the chat group, but argues that he did not violate Pepuda, and rather that he was exercising his right to religious freedom as a devout Muslim. 'As part of his beliefs regarding Islam, he believes that same-sex relationships are un-Islamic and amoral. He also holds the belief that, under his faith, he is obliged to take steps to prevent children from being exposed to what his faith and spiritual beliefs dictate is amoral behaviour,' his responding heads of argument read. In addition to opposing the SAHRC application, Lagardien also brought a counter-application, alleging that the commission's investigation was defective and it failed to discharge its duties under the South African Human Rights Commissions Act. He recounted an incident in June 2023 where two homosexual men allegedly entered his store and engaged in 'sexually inappropriate behaviour' by kissing and touching each other's genitals in front of Muslim customers and their young children. When asked to leave the store, the men allegedly told Lagardien they could do as they pleased during Pride Month. He alleged that the following day his daughter was threatened by two men from the LGBTQ+ community inside the store, and further threats of violence followed when Lagardien requested that they leave the store. This incident prompted him to post the disputed sign outside his store. Days later he found the sign had been destroyed. He stated that the WhatsApp group was created to 'alert members of his community to the threats and intimidation from the LGBTQ community'and to communicate Islamic teachings on homosexuality. While he claimed no messages to incite violence were ever sent on the group, he also stated that none of the screenshots of messages contained in the SAHRC's documents were linked to his phone number or WhatsApp account. The group has since been closed, and Lagardien reiterated that the sign outside his shop had been destroyed in response to claims that he refused to remove it. Lagardien argues the SAHRC's claim against him violates his right to freedom of religion, while the SAHRC states that his conduct goes far beyond the Islamic stance against homosexuality. The matter returned to the Gqeberha High Court last Monday, 28 July 2025. The court determined that SAHRC, represented by Advocate Siphelo Mbeki, and Lagardien, represented by Advocate Feroze Boda, must submit supplementary heads of argument in the next few weeks before a final judgment can be made. DM
