There was a new legal twist in the R50m Arthur Kaplan jewel heist case on Monday. The matter, now a consolidation of cases, has been referred to the director of public prosecutions to decide which court will hear the matter.
The saga began when embattled jewellery chain Arthur Kaplan was placed into liquidation last December. Liquidator Laila Motala was appointed to lead the process. The stores continued trading while Motala went about her duties.
However, in May she became concerned about the company financials and a lack of clear reporting and feedback she had asked for. She decided to make an impromptu visit to the Arthur Kaplan head office in Sandton on June 1, accompanied by a security contingent as she was intent on seizing documents, laptops and dismissing senior staffers.
At the time of the unannounced visit, Arthur Kaplan MD Hoosein Mohamed was at another meeting. He received a call from his personal assistant Ammaarah Ismail, who told him Motala was at his office “throwing laptops around”.
Despite an earlier order banning Mohamed from entering the premises while armed, he stormed into the AK head office with his firearm. According to his version, he was manhandled at the office entrance by security guards and dropped his firearm during the scuffle. Motala, however, contends that he physically grabbed her, threw her against a wall and pointed his firearm in her face.
The incident led to Motala opening a criminal case against Mohamed, who was arrested and taken into custody. The matter was heard in the Randburg magistrate’s court, and Mohamed was denied bail on grounds that he had lied in court, had shown “a propensity to commit schedule one offences” and had interfered with witnesses.
While Mohamed was in custody, and after ascertaining that jewellery and high-end watches worth millions were missing from the Arthur Kaplan stores, Motala secured a high court order authorising her to search Mohamed’s home and several other premises. However, she was unable to find any of the missing items.
I can confirm that my client was released from custody in respect of the second alleged charge of theft by the complainant, Ms Motala, which we believe was vexatious and simply, a vigorous attempt to prolong his incarceration.
— Mohseen Mayat, Hoosein Mohamed’s lawyer
She then laid a charge of theft against Mohamed, who — though still in custody — had been admitted to hospital. While there, Motala again approached the high court, this time for an Anton Piller order (search order) that allowed the sheriff of the court and a forensic expert to ambush Mohamed in his bed and confiscate all devices in his possession with the aim of securing evidence of the theft. They succeeded in getting access to his laptop, a tablet and more than one phone.
Later, though under police guard in hospital, Mohamed was seen easily accessing his cellphone. Undercover surveillance footage shows him sitting in the hospital garden busy on his phone while the police watched him.
Mohamed then took the bail decision on appeal to the Johannesburg high court, where a judge ruled in his favour. However, he could not be released as he was still in custody for the theft case.
But late last Friday Mohamed’s legal team mounted another bail bid in the Pretoria high court.
“Pursuant to an urgent application launched on Friday afternoon, I can confirm that my client was released from custody in respect of the second alleged charge of theft by the complainant, Ms Motala, which we believe was vexatious and simply, a vigorous attempt to prolong his incarceration,” said Mohamed’s lawyer, Mohseen Mayat, who handled the matter with Adv Francois Botes SC.
“The case was registered in June, but my client was only charged on July 16 2023, days before the bail appeal was heard, which was upheld. The complainant has, from the onset, driven the criminal charges only to further a corporate agenda. We cannot and will not countenance manipulation of the criminal justice system,” Mayat told TimesLIVE Premium.
On Monday both the assault and theft cases were consolidated and placed before Alexandra regional court magistrate Hannelie Banks, who postponed the matter for six weeks for it to be referred to the director of public prosecutions for a decision on which the court the matter will be heard in.
“I have no authority over a high court decision and have to simply do what’s instructed, which is to postpone the matter,” Banks said, adding she did not even know what the case was about.
“In so far as today's proceedings are concerned, I am pleased with the outcome and we look forward to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system,” Mayat said, after the court hearing.
Both Motala and her legal representative were unavailable to comment on the matter.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.