Minister of Police and Others v Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd (Sakeliga and Others as Amici Curiae)

Naam

Minister van Polisie en Andere v Fidelity Security Services (Edms) Bpk (Sakeliga en Andere as Amici Curiae)

Citation

Begin / Start

Oct 18, 2021

Tipe / Type

Amicus curiae

Hof

Konstitusionele Hof

Court

Constitutional Court

Litigasiefase

Gunstige skikking

Phase

Favourable settlement

Volgende hofdatum

Opsomming

Voor hierdie saak het die Polisie die Wet op Wapenbeheer op so ‘n wyse geïnterpreteer dat diegene wat wapens by die polisie vrywillig inhandig weens vorige versuim om die lisensies betyds te hernu, nie nuwe lisensieaansoeke ten opsigte van daardie wapens kon bring nie en derhalwe hul eiendom verbeur. Sakeliga het in sy vriend van die hof-aansoek geargumenteer dat hierdie interpretasie van die wet ekonomies onhoudbaar is, en dat dit nadelige implikasies vir eiendomsreg van wapeneienaars het. Sakeliga kon ’n saakmakende bydrae tot die gunstige uitkoms in die saak lewer. Die hof het in Fidelity se guns bevind, dat wapeneienaars ’n aansoek mag bring vir ’n nuwe lisensie ten opsigte van wapens met lisensies wat verval het. Die hof het ook ’n onderskeid tussen eiendom en besit getref. Bloot omdat ’n wapen nie in wettige besit is nie, verbeur ’n eienaar nie die eiendom (wapen/s) nie. Na aanleiding van die hofsaak het die Polisie op 1 Julie 2022 aan alle provinsiale kommissarisse ’n staande instruksie gestuur wat dit duidelik stel dat daar ’n onderskeid tussen eiendomsreg en besit van wapens is, en dat wapeneienaars ter enige tyd moet kan aansoek doen vir ’n lisensie vir ’n wapen, sonder om die wapen te verbeur. Luidens die instruksie behoort die polisie eerder nie wapeneienaars laat vervolg waar ’n wapen se lisensie verval het en die eienaar besit daarvan behou vir tyd en wyl stappe geneem word om 'n nuwe lisensie te bekom nie.

Summary

Prior to this case the Police interpreted the Firearms Control Act in such a way that people who voluntarily handed firearms in with the police owing to previous failure to renew their licences in time, were unable to submit new licence applications in respect of such firearms and consequently forfeited their property. As amicus curiae Sakeliga argued that this interpretation of the Act was untenable and that it was having harmful implications for ownership of firearm owners. Sakeliga was able to make a significant contribution to the favourable outcome in the case. The court found in favour of Fidelity, that firearm owners may bring an application for a new licence in respect of firearms with licences that have expired. The court also made a distinction between property and possession. The mere fact that a firearm is not in legal possession does not mean that the owner forfeits the property (firearm). Arising from the court case, SAPS on 1 July 2022 issued to all provincial commissioners a standing instruction that made it clear that there is a distinction between ownership and possession of firearms and that firearm owners must be able at any time to apply for a licence for a firearm without forfeiting the firearm. In terms of the instruction, the police should not cause firearm owners to be prosecuted where a firearm licence has expired, and the owner should retain possession thereof until such time as steps are taken to obtain a new licence.

Teenpartye

Minister van Polisie

Dokumente

2021-11-09 Sakeliga's submissions

2022-05-27 Judgment, Constitutional Court.pdf

Updates