Ninja Protection Services & Security and Another v Private Security Regulatory Authority (2047/2024) [2024] ZAECMHC 38 (30 May 2024)

Ninja Protection Services & Security and Another v Private Security Regulatory Authority (2047/2024) [2024] ZAECMHC 38 (30 May 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish any prima facie or clear right to the interim relief sought, as their relationship with the respondent is governed by the PSIRA Act, which expressly empowers the respondent to suspend registration pending investigation. The applicants' arguments regarding irrationality, unreasonableness, and unlawfulness of the decision were rejected, as the respondent acted within its statutory mandate and afforded the applicants an opportunity to make representations. The applicants did not challenge the validity of the PSIRA Act itself, and the requirement to return the certificate of registration was a statutory consequence, not a discretionary...

Citation
[2024] ZAECMHC 38
Parties
Applicant: Ninja Protection Services & Security; Applicant: Thamsanqa Steven Hako; Respondent: Private Security Regulatory Authority
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2024
Case Number
2047/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Reasons for Order Following Urgent Application Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on the scale C.
Judges
GNZ Mjali
Legal Topics
Precautionary Suspension, Interim Relief, Adequate Alternative Remedy, Procedural Fairness, Costs Order
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Precautionary Suspension Interim Relief Adequate Alternative Remedy Procedural Fairness 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ninja Protection Services & Security

Applicant

Thamsanqa Steven Hako

Applicant

Private Security Regulatory Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Reasons for Order Following Urgent Application Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to interim relief suspending the respondent's decision pending appeal or review.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's decision to suspend the applicants' registration was irrational, unreasonable, or unlawful.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have an adequate alternative remedy under the PSIRA Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish any prima facie or clear right to the interim relief sought, as their relationship with the respondent is governed by the PSIRA Act, which expressly empowers the respondent to suspend registration pending investigation. The applicants' arguments regarding irrationality, unreasonableness, and unlawfulness of the decision were rejected, as the respondent acted within its statutory mandate and afforded the applicants an opportunity to make representations. The applicants did not challenge the validity of the PSIRA Act itself, and the requirement to return the certificate of registration was a statutory consequence, not a discretionary...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on the scale C.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on the scale C.