South Africa Case Law

Intercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Police and Others (1013/2023)

Intercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Police and Others (1013/2023) [2024] ZAECMKHC 15 (6 February 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

1013/2023

Judge

Ronaasen

The court found that Intercape had established, on uncontested evidence, that it was the victim of a sustained, countrywide campaign of violence and intimidation orchestrated by the taxi industry, amounting to organised crime and racketeering. The Police, despite acknowledging the existence of this campaign, failed to investigate the incidents as organised crime and instead treated them as isolated events. The Provincial Commissioners did not report the crimes to the DPCI as required by section 16(4)(b) of the SAPS Act, and the DPCI failed to investigate them as national priority offences. Th…

Source excerpt

• Police Duties
• Organised Crime
• Racketeering
• Structural Relief
• Constitutional Obligations
• Failure To Investigate

Kleinhans v Minister of Police and Others (22007/2021)

Kleinhans v Minister of Police and Others (22007/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 525 (17 August 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22007/2021

Judge

E.M Kubushi

The High Court ordered police and the NPA to complete investigations into theft complaints and comply with prosecutorial instructions, but refused punitive costs.

• Mandamus
• Failure To Investigate
• Prosecutorial Duty
• Constitutional Rights Of Complainant
• Criminal-investigation
• Prosecutorial-discretion

Makhumsha v Minister of Safety and Security: Republic of South Africa and Another (92/2010)

Makhumsha v Minister of Safety and Security: Republic of South Africa and Another (92/2010) [2010] ZAECMHC 30 (21 October 2010)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

92/2010

Judge

C Plasket

The court found that the Butterworth police had failed in their constitutional and statutory duty to investigate the motor vehicle accident in which the applicant was injured. Despite repeated requests and correspondence, the police showed indifference and refused to act. The respondents only agreed to investigate after the application was launched, and opposed the costs order with an obfuscatory affidavit. The applicant achieved substantial success, and the respondents' conduct justified a costs order against them. The court ordered the respondents to investigate the accident and to pay the…

Source excerpt

• Failure To Investigate
• Mandamus
• Costs Order
• Police Duties
• Constitutional Obligations