MMA Security Services CC t/a Broubart Security and Another v Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority and Others (35393/2003) [2009] ZAGPHC 9 (27 January 2009)

MMA Security Services CC t/a Broubart Security and Another v Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority and Others (35393/2003) [2009] ZAGPHC 9 (27 January 2009)

The Court found that the Applicants were deprived of their right to procedural fairness as they were not aware of the date, time, and place of the disciplinary enquiry due to the summons being served on a data capturer who failed to inform them. The Respondents' assumption that the Applicants exercised their right not to attend was unfounded. The Third Respondent applied the incorrect legal standard by requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt rather than on a balance of probabilities. The Applicants raised bona fide defences and were entitled to be heard. The review application was therefore granted, setting aside both the conviction and sentence imposed by the Second Respondent and the...

Citation
[2009] ZAGPHC 9
Parties
Applicant: MMA Security Services CC t/a Broubart Security; Applicant: Mark Troyden Wood; Respondent: Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority; Respondent: S Nkamela NO; Respondent: HK Dlepu NO; Respondent: CJ Wepener NO
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 January 2009
Case Number
35393/2003
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Review Application
Outcome
Application for review granted. Conviction and sentence imposed on the Applicants set aside. Dismissal of appeal by the Third Respondent set aside. Costs awarded to Applicants on a party-and-party scale.
Judges
M N S Sithole
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Audi Alteram Partem, Procedural Fairness, Service of Process, Review of Administrative Action
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Audi Alteram Partem Procedural Fairness Service of Process Review of Administrative Action

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MMA Security Services CC t/a Broubart Security

Applicant

Mark Troyden Wood

Applicant

Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority

Respondent

S Nkamela NO

Respondent

HK Dlepu NO

Respondent

CJ Wepener NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants had knowledge of the improper conduct enquiry and intentionally chose not to attend it.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the Applicants' appeal by the Third Respondent against the conviction and sentence imposed by the First Respondent is sustainable at law.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants were afforded procedural fairness in the disciplinary proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Applicants were deprived of their right to procedural fairness as they were not aware of the date, time, and place of the disciplinary enquiry due to the summons being served on a data capturer who failed to inform them. The Respondents' assumption that the Applicants exercised their right not to attend was unfounded. The Third Respondent applied the incorrect legal standard by requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt rather than on a balance of probabilities. The Applicants raised bona fide defences and were entitled to be heard. The review application was therefore granted, setting aside both the conviction and sentence imposed by the Second Respondent and the...

Court Disposition

Application for review granted. Conviction and sentence imposed on the Applicants set aside. Dismissal of appeal by the Third Respondent set aside. Costs awarded to Applicants on a party-and-party scale.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence imposed on the Applicants by the Second Respondent on 9 October 2001 are reviewed and set aside.
  • The dismissal of the Applicants' appeal by the Third Respondent of the conviction and sentence of the First Respondent against Applicants is reviewed and set aside.