Beheermaatschappij Helling I NV v Magistrate, Cape Town
In Beheermaatschappij Helling I NV v Magistrate, Cape Town (2007), the applicants, who were, variously, Dutch and South African nationals, sought orders declaring: The court made note of the following applicable legal principles: The court found that In respect of the search of the applicants' offices, the search warrant authorized only a search for and seizure of "documentation." Construing the warrant with reasonable strictness, and in accordance with its express wording, it did not authorize the seizure of the CPUs and other equipment for storing electronic information from the premises. Nor did  it authorize an off-site search. Furthermore, the-off site search had not been necessary, as the electronic data found by the police could have been copied at the premises without the necessity of removing it off-site and thus disrupting the applicants' business for several days. It was trite that search and seizure had to be carried out in the least intrusive and disruptive manner. The police had no power to disrupt the applicants' business more than was necessary. In the circumstances, the removal by the police of the bulk of the electronic material from the applicants' offices was  unlawful, in that it was not authorized by the warrant. The court also held that all three search warrants were fatally flawed by being both too vague and too broad. It followed that the issuing of the warrants, as well as the searches themselves, were unlawful. In addition, the material seized at the applicants' offices was not authorized by the warrant. The warrants, therefore, were declared invalid, and the respondents were directed to return the material seized.