O'Sullivan and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (63929/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 655 (6 October 2017)

O'Sullivan and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (63929/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 655 (6 October 2017)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12), having not set out explicit circumstances or reasons why substantial redress could not be afforded in due course. The NPA order did not create special rights beyond those provided by the Constitution and statute; the right to make representations accrues only after service of a charge sheet. The summons was lawfully issued and did not contravene the prior court order. The application was premature, as the applicants had not exercised their right to seek review. The application constituted an abuse of process, and the applicants failed to make out a proper case for declaratory or interdictory relief....

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 655
Parties
Applicant: Paul Roberto O'Sullivan; Applicant: Melissa Naidu; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: Adv J J Mlotshwa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 October 2017
Case Number
63929/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Declaratory and Interdictory Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on the scale as between attorney and client, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
M.W. Msimeki
Legal Topics
Urgent Application, Declaratory Relief, Review of Prosecutorial Decision, Summons Validity, Attorney and Client Costs
Civil Procedure Criminal Law Urgent Application Declaratory Relief Review of Prosecutorial Decision Summons Validity Attorney and Client Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Roberto O'Sullivan

Applicant

Melissa Naidu

Applicant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

Adv J J Mlotshwa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Declaratory and Interdictory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the issue and service of the summons in criminal case 384/2017 contravened the prior High Court order under case number 75378/2016.
  2. 2 Whether the application was urgent and justified to be heard as such.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants established a clear right to the declaratory and interdictory relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12), having not set out explicit circumstances or reasons why substantial redress could not be afforded in due course. The NPA order did not create special rights beyond those provided by the Constitution and statute; the right to make representations accrues only after service of a charge sheet. The summons was lawfully issued and did not contravene the prior court order. The application was premature, as the applicants had not exercised their right to seek review. The application constituted an abuse of process, and the applicants failed to make out a proper case for declaratory or interdictory relief....

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on the scale as between attorney and client, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on the scale as between attorney and client, which costs include costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.