Richardson and Another v Minister of South African Police Services and Others (67943/ 2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1064 (16 October 2015)

Richardson and Another v Minister of South African Police Services and Others (67943/ 2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1064 (16 October 2015)

The court found that the applicants' fear of imminent arrest was speculative and unsupported by objective facts. The threat was too remote to justify urgent intervention. The applicants failed to establish the requisite urgency, and the relief sought would amount to impermissible interference with the administrative discretion of the authorities in issuing warrants. The application was therefore not properly before the court on the urgent roll and was removed for lack of urgency.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 1064
Parties
Applicant: Kevin Rene Richardson; Applicant: Mandy Margaret Richardson; Respondent: Minister of South African Police Services; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Minister of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: South Gauteng Senior Public Prosecutor; Respondent: The Commander, Norwood Police Station
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 October 2015
Case Number
67943/ 2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief to Prevent Possible Arrest Pending Inquiry Under Companies Act
Outcome
Application removed from the urgent roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against applicants.
Judges
Mavundla
Legal Topics
Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Companies Act Section 417 418, Warrant of Arrest, Right to Liberty
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Urgency in Motion Proceedings Companies Act Section 417 418 Warrant of Arrest Right to Liberty

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Rene Richardson

Applicant

Mandy Margaret Richardson

Applicant

Minister of South African Police Services

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Minister of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

South Gauteng Senior Public Prosecutor

Respondent

The Commander, Norwood Police Station

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief to Prevent Possible Arrest Pending Inquiry Under Companies Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and should be heard on the urgent roll.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants face a real and imminent threat of arrest justifying court intervention.
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought amounts to impermissible interference with administrative discretion in issuing warrants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' fear of imminent arrest was speculative and unsupported by objective facts. The threat was too remote to justify urgent intervention. The applicants failed to establish the requisite urgency, and the relief sought would amount to impermissible interference with the administrative discretion of the authorities in issuing warrants. The application was therefore not properly before the court on the urgent roll and was removed for lack of urgency.

Court Disposition

Application removed from the urgent roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • The application is removed from the urgent roll for lack of urgency.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the respondents, including costs occasioned by the employment of senior counsel, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.