South Africa Case Law

Minister of Police v Kulati (Appeal) (CA05/2022)

Minister of Police v Kulati (Appeal) (CA05/2022) [2025] ZAECMKHC 47 (23 May 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA05/2022

Judges

RWN Brooks, NG Mjali, ZZ Matebese

The court held that section 59A of the Criminal Procedure Act does not impose a duty on police officials to initiate bail proceedings unless the detainee requests bail. The respondent was informed of his right to apply for bail, and there was no evidence that he wished to be released on bail prior to his first court appearance. The police fulfilled their statutory obligations by informing the respondent of his rights, and the absence of a request for bail meant that no further duty arose to facilitate bail. The approach adopted by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Coetzee was endorsed, and the c…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Detention
• Police Duties
• Bail Application
• Section 59a Criminal Procedure Act
• Constitutional Right To Liberty
• Damages For Unlawful Detention

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

Astra Boerdery CC and Another v Acting Station Commander Ganyesa and Others (UM100/22)

Astra Boerdery CC and Another v Acting Station Commander Ganyesa and Others (UM100/22) [2023] ZANWHC 164 (12 September 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM100/22

Judge

Reddy

The High Court dismissed an urgent contempt application against SAPS officials, finding no proven wilful and mala fide non-compliance with earlier court orders.

• Contempt Of Court
• Interdict
• Execution Of Court Orders
• Trespass
• Police Duties
• Burden Of Proof

Impangle Logistics (Pty) Ltd and Another v All Truck Drivers' Foundation (ATDF) and Others; Mbali Coal Proprietary Limited v Ntuthuko and Others (3647/2019; 3564/2019)

Impangle Logistics (Pty) Ltd and Another v All Truck Drivers' Foundation (ATDF) and Others; Mbali Coal Proprietary Limited v Ntuthuko and Others (3647/2019; 3564/2019) [2019] ZAMPMHC 11; 2020 (1) SACR 536 (ML) (25 October 2019)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

3647/2019; 3564/2019

Judge

Legodi

The High Court held that SAPS failed to meet its constitutional duty to act against ongoing criminal conduct and ordered the Provincial Commissioner to consider an inquiry.

• Section 205 Constitution
• Police Duties
• Urgent Interdict
• Failure To Prevent Crime
• Public Order
• Separation Of Powers

Ego Gardens (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Police and Others (19186/2018)

Ego Gardens (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Police and Others (19186/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 158 (30 March 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

19186/2018

Judge

MIA

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency and locus standi for the relief sought. The police's resource constraints and operational procedures made the requested orders impractical, and the municipality's obligations under PIE would only arise after actual occupation, not mere trespass. Orders against unidentified and unserved groups were found to be ineffective and unenforceable. The applicants, as property owners, bear the primary responsibility to protect their property from trespass and unlawful occupation. The court declined to compel the police to provide specific…

Source excerpt

• Trespass Act
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Municipal Obligations
• Urgent Interdict
• Constitutional Property Rights
• Police Duties

Pinkie v Commissioner of the South African Police and Another (59340/16)

Pinkie v Commissioner of the South African Police and Another (59340/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 939 (30 March 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

59340/16

Judge

Sibuyi

The High Court dismissed an unopposed claim against police for constitutional damages and contumelia, finding no pleaded right or actionable delict.

• Constitutional Damages
• Actio Injuriarum
• Contumelia
• Wrongful Omission
• Police Duties
• Constitutional-damages

Ngona v Minister of Police (9198/2010)

Ngona v Minister of Police (9198/2010) [2012] ZAWCHC 325 (8 October 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9198/2010

Judge

Davis

The court found that while the police had a reasonable suspicion to arrest the plaintiff when he failed to produce documentation, they did not comply with their statutory obligations under section 41(1) of the Immigration Act and Regulation 32. The evidence showed that the plaintiff was not afforded a genuine opportunity to contact his relatives to verify his identity, nor did the police take steps to access departmental records. The contradictions between the police witnesses' testimony and the defendant's plea, as well as the corroborated evidence of the plaintiff and his sister, led the co…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Arrest And Detention
• Immigration Act Section 41
• Refugee Status Verification
• Police Duties
• Regulation 32 Compliance

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

S v Pakane and Others (43/07)

S v Pakane and Others (43/07) [2007] ZASCA 134; [2007] SCA 134 (RSA) ; 2008 (1) SACR 518 (SCA) (28 September 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

43/07

Judges

MML Maya, Mthiyane, Hurt

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court correctly rejected the appellants' versions as improbable and inconsistent with objective facts, including forensic and ballistic evidence. The second appellant's claim of private or putative private defence was untenable, as the deceased posed no threat and was not ready to shoot when killed. The evidence established that the deceased sustained both gunshot wounds in the incident involving the appellants, and their subsequent conduct—swapping rifles, tampering with the occurrence book, and failing to report the shooting—constituted defea…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Accessory After The Fact
• Defeating The Ends Of Justice
• Minimum Sentencing
• Private Defence
• Police Duties

Fullimput 221 CC t/a Hawk Momlaba Luxury Tours v Sono and Another, Fullimput 221 CC t/a Hawk Momlaba Luxury Tours v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (7215/06, 11712/06)

Fullimput 221 CC t/a Hawk Momlaba Luxury Tours v Sono and Another, Fullimput 221 CC t/a Hawk Momlaba Luxury Tours v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (7215/06, 11712/06) [2006] ZAGPHC 197; 2006 (10) BCLR 1202 (T) (18 May 2006)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

7215/06, 11712/06

Judge

Van Rooyen

The applicant established a clear right to operate its bus service under valid permits and to have its employees and passengers protected from violence and intimidation. The respondents' conduct, including threats, obstruction, and physical violence, constituted unlawful interference and contempt of previous court orders. The sixth respondent's denial was insufficient, and the seventh respondent's failure to answer led to a finding of contempt. The police failed in their constitutional and statutory duties by not intervening or enforcing the law, justifying a mandamus compelling investigation…

Source excerpt

• Interdict
• Contempt Of Court
• Mandamus
• Bill Of Rights Protection
• Public Transport Permits
• Police Duties