Download PDF

South Africa Order

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Buchura and Another v Station Commander Orlando Police (SAPS) and Another (051123/23) [2023] ZAGPJHC 612 (1 June 2023)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the first applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the container prior to its seizure by or through the second respondent, a police officer. There was no evidence of any criminal process, arrest, or docket relating to the alleged theft. The applicant's ownership was supported by a cash invoice and was not disputed. The court accepted that, even if the container was not in the physical possession of the police, it was held by a third party on their behalf, as the seizure was effected in the course and scope of the second respondent's employment. The requirements for the mandament van spolie were met, and the applicants were entitled to restoration of possession.

Court disposition

Application granted; order for restoration of possession to the first applicant.

Orders

  • The respondents are ordered and directed to forthwith, but by no later than 13:00 on Monday 5 June 2023, return to the first applicant’s possession the 1/6M Container IMM – 20’ (6m) Standard General Freight Container seized and removed by or through the second respondent from the first applicant’s possession on 25 May 2023.
  • No order as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Zenadin Mohammed Buchura

Applicant

Marothi Josias Mashashane

Applicant

The Station Commander Orlando Police (SAPS)

Respondent

Officer Gumede (SAPS)

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Deadline for Return of Container (hours From Order): ZAR 104

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Urgent Application / Final Order

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants argued that the container was unlawfully seized by the second respondent, acting as a police officer, without any arrest or criminal docket being opened. The first applicant claimed ownership of the container and provided a cash invoice as proof. They submitted that even if the container was not in the physical possession of the police, it was held by a third party on behalf of the police, as the seizure was effected in the course and scope of the second respondent's employment.
Respondent
The respondents did not appear and did not file any answering papers or submissions.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Mandament van Spolie; Yeko v Qana 1973 (4) SA 735 (A)

    A person deprived of possession without consent and without due process is entitled to restoration of possession via the mandament van spolie remedy.

  2. 02

    Ivanov v North West Gambling Board and Others 2012 (6) SA 67 (SCA)

    The party seeking restoration must prove peaceful and undisturbed possession and unlawful deprivation.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the first applicant was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the container prior to its seizure by or through the second respondent, a police officer. There was no evidence of any criminal process, arrest, or docket relating to the alleged theft. The applicant's ownership was supported by a cash invoice and was not disputed. The court accepted that, even if the container was not in the physical possession of the police, it was held by a third party on their behalf, as the seizure was effected in the course and scope of the second respondent's employment. The requirements for the mandament van spolie were met, and the applicants were entitled to restoration of possession.

Obiter and limits

  • The court expressed concern about granting an order for the return of property not in the respondents' possession but accepted the inference that the property was held on their behalf.
  • The absence of any police record or SAP13 entry regarding the seizure was noted as irregular.

Court disposition

Application granted; order for restoration of possession to the first applicant.

  • The respondents are ordered and directed to forthwith, but by no later than 13:00 on Monday 5 June 2023, return to the first applicant’s possession the 1/6M Container IMM – 20’ (6m) Standard General Freight Container seized and removed by or through the second respondent from the first applicant’s possession on 25 May 2023.
  • No order as to costs.

Source and reliance status

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Order

[2023] ZAGPJHC 612

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH

AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

Case Number: 051123/23

NOT

REPORTABLE

NOT OF

INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES

REVISED

01/06/23

In the matter between:

ZENADIN

MOHAMMED BUCHURA First Applicant

MAROTHI

JOSIAS MASHASHANE Second Applicant And THE STATION COMMANDER ORLANDO POLICE (SAPS) First Respondent

OFFICER GUMEDE (SAPS) Second Respondent

NEUTRAL CITATION: Zenadin Mohammed Buchura & Another v The Station Commander Orlando Police (SAPS) & Another (Case No: 051123/23) [2023] ZAGPJHC 612 (01 June 2023)

ORDER

1. The Respondents be and hereby are ordered and directed to, to forthwith but by no later than 13:00 on Monday 5 June 2023, return to the First Applicant’s possession the 1/6M Container IMM – 20’ (6m) Standard General Freight Container seized and removed by or through the Second Respondent from the First Applicant’s possession on 25 May 2023.

2. No order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

Thompson AJ:

[1] On 25 May 2023 the first applicant’s 1/6M CONTAINER IMM – 20’ (6m) Standard General Freight Container (“the container”) was seized and removed by or through the actions of the Second Respondent, one Mr Gumede, an officer of unknown designation in the employ of the South African Police Services and Stationed at the Orlando Police Station. The seizure of the container is premised thereon that the container was reported as stolen at the Orlando Police Station.

[2] The applicants caused the application to be served on the Respondents by service thereof on the Provincial Office of the South African Police Services. During address on the matter, the second applicant informed me that they attempted to serve the application at the offices of the state attorney, however the state attorney advised them that they only deal with matters where the national minister is cited as a party and accordingly they must serve at the provincial office of the South African Police Services.

I am satisfied that the application was served on the provincial offices of the South African Police Services on 30 May 2023, as is evidenced by the Provincial Commissioner Legal Services date stamp affixed to the Notice of Motion.

[3] I was further informed during address that the container was, at the behest of Mr Gumede, purporting to act within the course and scope of his employment, removed from the possession of the first application by a private entity. According to what I was informed during the address, there is no entry in any occurrence book or SAP13 store entry of the seizure of the container. I expressed the concern to the applicants of granting an order whereby the respondents are to return that which is not in their possession. It was submitted by the second applicant, on behalf of the first applicant, that even if the container is not in the possession of the South African Police Services, it must be inferred that it is being held by a third party on the South African Police Services’ behalf as the container was ostensibly seized in the course and scope of the second respondent’s employment.

[4] The first applicant also alleges that he was not arrested for the alleged theft of the container nor was any docket opened at the Orlando Police Station when he queried same. The applicant also alleges that he is the owner of the container and annexed a cash invoice to this effect to the founding papers. There is no evidence to gainsay his ownership of the container.

[5] In light of the aforesaid, I am satisfied that a proper case has been made out for the return of the container to the first applicant and I grant an order in the following terms:

C

E THOMPSON AJ

ACTING JUDGE OF THE

HIGH COURT

JOHANNESBURG

DATE OF HEARING: 01 June 2023

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01 June 2023

APPEARANCES

For the Applicants: In person For the Respondents: No appearance

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Yeko v Qana 1973 (4) SA 735 (A)

Case cited

Ivanov v North West Gambling Board and Others 2012 (6) SA 67 (SCA)

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.