Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd Code of Body 16455 and Others v National Commissioner of The South African Police Services, General KJ Sithole and Others (31971/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 731 (6 October 2022)

Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd Code of Body 16455 and Others v National Commissioner of The South African Police Services, General KJ Sithole and Others (31971/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 731 (6 October 2022)

The court found that the respondents had failed to comply with the 5 July 2022 order, having processed only 64 of 456 licence applications within the stipulated period. This non-compliance justified a declaratory order and the issuance of temporary authorisations under section 21 of the Firearms Control Act to mitigate prejudice to the applicants. The court imposed conditions on the temporary authorisations to balance the interests of both parties, including a minimum validity period of one year and requirements for return of firearms if applications are refused or if firearms are linked to criminal investigations. The respondents' administrative failures could not be used to avoid their...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 731
Parties
Applicant: Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd Code of Body 16455; Applicant: Secureco Metsu (Pty) Ltd Code of Body 19708; Applicant: Fidelity ADT (Pty) Ltd Code of Body 15942; Applicant: Fidelity Cash Solutions Code of Body 16415; Applicant: Analytical Risk Management (Pty) Ltd t/a 2RM Security Code of Body 18521; Respondent: National Commissioner of the South African Police Services, General KJ Sithole (Registrar of Firearms); Respondent: Major General Mamotethi (Head of Firearms, Liquor and Second-Hand Goods “FLASH”); Respondent: Colonel PN Sikhakhane (Acting Head of the Central Firearms Registry); Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: Firearms Appeal Board
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 October 2022
Case Number
31971/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Post Order Contempt and Enforcement Proceedings
Outcome
Application granted in part; declaration of non-compliance issued; temporary authorisations ordered; costs awarded against respondents.
Judges
Millar
Legal Topics
Firearms Control Act, Temporary Authorisation, Contempt of Court, Administrative Delay, Costs Order
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Firearms Control Act Temporary Authorisation Contempt of Court Administrative Delay Costs Order

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd Code of Body 16455

Applicant

Secureco Metsu (Pty) Ltd Code of Body 19708

Applicant

Fidelity ADT (Pty) Ltd Code of Body 15942

Applicant

Fidelity Cash Solutions Code of Body 16415

Applicant

Analytical Risk Management (Pty) Ltd t/a 2RM Security Code of Body 18521

Applicant

National Commissioner of the South African Police Services, General KJ Sithole (Registrar of Firearms)

Respondent

Major General Mamotethi (Head of Firearms, Liquor and Second-Hand Goods “FLASH”)

Respondent

Colonel PN Sikhakhane (Acting Head of the Central Firearms Registry)

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

Firearms Appeal Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Post Order Contempt and Enforcement Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents complied with the court order dated 5 July 2022 to process firearm licence applications within the agreed timeframe.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to temporary authorisations for firearms pending the processing of permanent licences.
  3. 3 What conditions should attach to the temporary authorisations issued under section 21 of the Firearms Control Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents had failed to comply with the 5 July 2022 order, having processed only 64 of 456 licence applications within the stipulated period. This non-compliance justified a declaratory order and the issuance of temporary authorisations under section 21 of the Firearms Control Act to mitigate prejudice to the applicants. The court imposed conditions on the temporary authorisations to balance the interests of both parties, including a minimum validity period of one year and requirements for return of firearms if applications are refused or if firearms are linked to criminal investigations. The respondents' administrative failures could not be used to avoid their...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; declaration of non-compliance issued; temporary authorisations ordered; costs awarded against respondents.

Orders

  • It is declared that the First, Second and Third Respondents did not comply with the order dated 5 July 2022.
  • The Third Respondent is ordered to issue and deliver Temporary Authorisations under section 21 of the Firearms Control Act for specified firearms by 23 September 2022.