Thint (Pty) Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others; Zuma and Another v NDPP and Others [2008] ZACC 13 (31 July 2008)

Application for leave to appeal concerning search and seizure warrants which authorised, in terms of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, searches and seizures carried out by the National Prosecuting Authority (the state) to obtain information connected to the investigation of serious, organised crime. Whether the warrants violated the applicants' rights to privacy and property. The majority held that a balance must be struck between protecting privacy and property interests and the state's constitutionally mandated task of prosecuting crime. An application for a warrant must disclose material facts and must demonstrate a 'need' for a warrant, which requires there being an appreciable risk that the state would be unable to obtain the information sought by other means. Warrants are required to be intelligible so that they reasonably can be understood by a reasonably well-informed person. The majority held that these requirements were met in these cases and that specific mention in the warrants of the right to claim legal privilege was not required. The appeal was dismissed.