Western Cape High Court overturns fraud convictions against Good Hope Construction sole member
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.