Hurricharan and Others v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (2075/07) [2008] ZAECHC 92 (10 June 2008)
The court found that the applicants had established urgency due to ongoing commercial losses and that the notice given to the respondents was reasonable under the circumstances, satisfying the requirements of Section 35 of the General Law Amendment Act. The respondents failed to prove that the search and seizure of the vehicles was justified under Section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as they did not establish reasonable grounds for suspicion nor did they adequately investigate the circumstances before impounding the vehicles. The presumption under Section 68(7) of the National Road Traffic Act does not apply at the investigation stage. The application to strike out portions of the...
- Citation
- [2008] ZAECHC 92
- Parties
- Applicant: Ravindar Hurricharan; Applicant: Raneshan Moonasur; Applicant: Moonasur Hurricharan; Applicant: Rajeshan Moonasur; Applicant: Anil Madangith; Applicant: Sharman Balraj; Applicant: Gans Tours CC; Respondent: Minister of Safety and Security; Respondent: Commissioner of the South African Police Services, Eastern Cape; Respondent: Inspector J P Lourens
- Court
- High Courts - Eastern Cape
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 10 June 2008
- Case Number
- 2075/07
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Final Determination After Interim Order and Application to Strike Out
- Outcome
- Application to strike out dismissed; interim order for release of vehicles confirmed; costs awarded against respondents.
- Judges
- N Dambuza
- Legal Topics
- Urgent Interdict, Search and Seizure, Section 20 Criminal Procedure Act, Section 68 National Road Traffic Act, Rule Nisi Notice Requirements, Costs Order
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ravindar Hurricharan
Applicant
Raneshan Moonasur
Applicant
Moonasur Hurricharan
Applicant
Rajeshan Moonasur
Applicant
Anil Madangith
Applicant
Sharman Balraj
Applicant
Gans Tours CC
Applicant
Minister of Safety and Security
Respondent
Commissioner of the South African Police Services, Eastern Cape
Respondent
Inspector J P Lourens
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination After Interim Order and Application to Strike Out
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the seizure and continued detention of the applicants' vehicles by the police was lawful and justified.
- 2 Whether the application was urgent and complied with statutory notice requirements under Section 35 of the General Law Amendment Act.
- 3 Whether the respondents' application to strike out portions of the applicants' replying affidavit should succeed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had established urgency due to ongoing commercial losses and that the notice given to the respondents was reasonable under the circumstances, satisfying the requirements of Section 35 of the General Law Amendment Act. The respondents failed to prove that the search and seizure of the vehicles was justified under Section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as they did not establish reasonable grounds for suspicion nor did they adequately investigate the circumstances before impounding the vehicles. The presumption under Section 68(7) of the National Road Traffic Act does not apply at the investigation stage. The application to strike out portions of the...
Court Disposition
Application to strike out dismissed; interim order for release of vehicles confirmed; costs awarded against respondents.
Orders
- The application to strike out is dismissed with costs.
- The order of 21 September 2007 is confirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment