Impangle Logistics (Pty) Ltd and Another v All Truck Drivers' Foundation (ATDF) and Others; Mbali Coal Proprietary Limited v Ntuthuko and Others (3647/2019; 3564/2019) [2019] ZAMPMHC 11; 2020 (1) SACR 536 (ML) (25 October 2019)

Impangle Logistics (Pty) Ltd and Another v All Truck Drivers' Foundation (ATDF) and Others; Mbali Coal Proprietary Limited v Ntuthuko and Others (3647/2019; 3564/2019) [2019] ZAMPMHC 11; 2020 (1) SACR 536 (ML) (25 October 2019)

The court found that the South African Police Service failed to comply with their constitutional obligations under section 205(3) of the Constitution by refusing to intervene in ongoing criminal activities, including the unlawful detention of vehicles, intimidation and assault of employees, and obstruction of business operations. The police's insistence on requiring a court order before acting was held to be unlawful and contrary to their constitutional mandate. The court emphasized that the responsibility for maintaining public order and preventing crime rests with the police, not the judiciary, and that resource constraints cannot excuse dereliction of duty. The judgment directed the...

Citation
[2019] ZAMPMHC 11
Parties
Applicant: Impangle Logistics (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Level Loads CC; Applicant: Mbali Coal Proprietary Limited; Respondent: All Truck Drivers' Foundation (ATDF); Respondent: Buthelezi Ntuthuko
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 October 2019
Case Number
3647/2019; 3564/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Urgent Motion Hearing
Outcome
Application granted. The court found the police failed in their constitutional duties and directed remedial action.
Judges
Legodi
Legal Topics
Section 205 Constitution, Police Duties, Urgent Interdict, Failure to Prevent Crime, Public Order, Separation of Powers
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Section 205 Constitution Police Duties Urgent Interdict Failure to Prevent Crime Public Order Separation of Powers

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Impangle Logistics (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Level Loads CC

Applicant

Mbali Coal Proprietary Limited

Applicant

All Truck Drivers' Foundation (ATDF)

Respondent

Buthelezi Ntuthuko

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Urgent Motion Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the South African Police Service (SAPS) comply with their constitutional obligations under section 205(3) of the Constitution to prevent, combat and investigate crime, maintain public order, and protect property?
  2. 2 Are the police justified in refusing to intervene in criminal activities until a court order is obtained?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate role of the courts versus the police in maintaining public order and enforcing the law?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the South African Police Service failed to comply with their constitutional obligations under section 205(3) of the Constitution by refusing to intervene in ongoing criminal activities, including the unlawful detention of vehicles, intimidation and assault of employees, and obstruction of business operations. The police's insistence on requiring a court order before acting was held to be unlawful and contrary to their constitutional mandate. The court emphasized that the responsibility for maintaining public order and preventing crime rests with the police, not the judiciary, and that resource constraints cannot excuse dereliction of duty. The judgment directed the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The court found the police failed in their constitutional duties and directed remedial action.

Orders

  • The Registrar is directed to bring this judgment to the attention of the Mpumalanga Provincial Commissioner.
  • The Provincial Commissioner is to consider whether to institute an inquiry and to consult with the applicants' attorneys to address the complaints and take measures to avoid recurrence of similar complaints in the future.