Sechaba Protection Services CC (Pty) Ltd and Others v Passenger Rail Agency of SA Ltd and Others (3 November 2023) (19976/2019) [2023] ZAWCHC 280 (3 November 2023)

Sechaba Protection Services CC (Pty) Ltd and Others v Passenger Rail Agency of SA Ltd and Others (3 November 2023) (19976/2019) [2023] ZAWCHC 280 (3 November 2023)

The Court held that PRASA had not satisfied the requirements of the Hlophe JP Order, which required both the completion and implementation of a tender process and the approval of a contingency safety plan by the Railway Safety Regulator before terminating the Applicants' services. The Regulator's approval was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAWCHC 280
Parties
Applicant: Sechaba Protection Services CC (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: High Goals Investments cc t/a Chuma Security Services; Applicant: Supreme Security Services CC; Applicant: Vusa-Isizwe Security (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Passenger Rail Agency of SA Ltd; Respondent: Bongisizwe Mpondo; Amicus Curiae: #UnitedBehind
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 November 2023
Case Number
19976/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Discharge of Supervisory Order and Counter Applications for Variation and Review
Outcome
PRASA's application to discharge the Hlophe JP Order is dismissed. The Hlophe JP Order is replaced with a new supervisory order requiring PRASA to report on the status of the 2023 Tender and obtain proper confirmation of Regulator approval. The Applicants' services may only be terminated once compliance is...
Judges
M J Bishop
Legal Topics
Structural Interdict, Public Procurement, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Constitutional Obligations, Rule 53 Review, Costs Award
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Structural Interdict Public Procurement Supervisory Jurisdiction Constitutional Obligations Rule 53 Review +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sechaba Protection Services CC (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

High Goals Investments cc t/a Chuma Security Services

Applicant

Supreme Security Services CC

Applicant

Vusa-Isizwe Security (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Passenger Rail Agency of SA Ltd

Respondent

Bongisizwe Mpondo

Respondent

#UnitedBehind

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Discharge of Supervisory Order and Counter Applications for Variation and Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Hlophe JP Order require PRASA to complete and implement a tender and obtain the Regulator's approval of a safety plan before terminating the Applicants' services?
  2. 2 Did PRASA adequately establish that the Regulator had approved its safety plan?
  3. 3 Had PRASA completed and implemented a tender process at the time of the application?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that PRASA had not satisfied the requirements of the Hlophe JP Order, which required both the completion and implementation of a tender process and the approval of a contingency safety plan by the Railway Safety Regulator before terminating the Applicants' services. The Regulator's approval was not adequately established, as PRASA failed to provide confirmation from the Regulator's Board or properly delegated official. The tender process was not completed or implemented at the time of the application, and the use of the ACSA Panel was moot. The Court found that ongoing judicial supervision was necessary to protect commuters' constitutional rights and ensure effective...

Court Disposition

PRASA's application to discharge the Hlophe JP Order is dismissed. The Hlophe JP Order is replaced with a new supervisory order requiring PRASA to report on the status of the 2023 Tender and obtain proper confirmation of Regulator approval. The Applicants' services may only be terminated once compliance is...

Orders

  • PRASA's applications dated 17 and 19 October 2023 to strike out replying affidavits are dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
  • PRASA's application dated 19 June 2023 for discharge of the Hlophe JP Order is dismissed.