Booysen v Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions (4665/2010)  ZAKZDHC 1;  2 All SA 391 (KZD); 2014 (9) BCLR 1064 (KZD); 2014 (2) SACR 556 (KZD) (26 February 2014) per Gorven J.
The High Court applied the principle of legality after the applicant based his application directly on s172(1) of the Constitution and reviewed and set aside the decisions to prosecute him.
‘(a) Declaring the decisions taken by the first respondent purportedly in terms of the provisions of s 2(4), read with s 1 and 2 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, No 121 of 1998 (“POCA”), on 17 August 2012 to authorise the applicant’s prosecution on charges of contravening sections 2(1)(e) and 2(1)(f) of POCA inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 and invalid;
(b) Reviewing and setting aside the aforesaid decisions taken by the first respondent on 17 August 2012;
(c) Declaring the decision(s) taken by the first respondent, alternatively second respondent, alternatively first and second respondents, to prosecute the applicant on the charges contained in counts 1and 2 and 8 to 12 of the indictment served upon the applicant on 29 October 2012 (“the indictment”) inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 and invalid;
(d) Setting aside the first respondent’s, alternatively second respondent’s, alternatively first and second respondents’, decision(s) to prosecute the applicant on the charges contained in counts 1 and 2 and 8 to 12 of the indictment;
(e) . . . .
(f) Ordering the first respondent and any other respondent who opposes this application to pay the applicant’s costs of suit, which costs are to include the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.’