Buchura and Another v Station Commander Orlando Police (SAPS) and Another (051123/23) [2023] ZAGPJHC 612 (1 June 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPJHC 612
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- C E Thompson
- Case number
- 051123/23
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- C E Thompson
- Case number
- 051123/23
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
ApplicantMarothi Josias Mashashane
ApplicantThe Station Commander Orlando Police (SAPS)
RespondentOfficer Gumede (SAPS)
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Deadline for Return of Container (hours From Order): ZAR 104
03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Final Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicants are entitled to the return of the seized container.
- 02
Whether the seizure was lawful and in accordance with police procedures.
- 03
Whether the respondents are obliged to restore possession to the first applicant.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Order
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
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.