About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZALMPPHC 6
|
|
Cheba and Others v Minister of Police and Others (520/2018) [2018] ZALMPPHC 6 (13 February 2018)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
LIMPOPO
DIVISION, POLOKWANE
CASE
NUMBER: 520/2018
REPORTABLE
OF
INTERST TO OTHER JUDGES
REVISED.
13/2/2018
In
the matter between:
KASUNE
ABERA
CHEBA
FIRST
APPLICANT
MEHRAFU
LOBEGCHIO
SECOND
APPLICANT
AEYALA
GENTAMO
MANTAHSO
THIRD
APPLICANT
TAREKNE
ORGHSO
HAREMO
FOURTH
APPLICANT
FEKELE
ANULO
HILBORO
FIFTH
APPLICANT
And
MINISTER
OF POLICE &
OTHERS
FIRST
RESPONDENT
THE
MINISTER OF HOME
AFFAIRS
SECOND
RESPONDENT
THE
DIRECTOR OF THE
HAWKS
THIRD
RESPONDENT
THE SENIOR PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
POLOKWANE
MAGISTRATES COURT
FOURTH
RESPONDENT
THE
MANAGER; POLOKWANE
PLACE
OF
SAFETY
FIFTH
RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
D
NAIR AJ:
[1]
This matter served before me in the urgent motion court. The
applicants are Ethiopian nationals who apply for their release
from
the Polokwane Welfare Centre (Khuseleka) and further for an order
directing the respondents to issue asylum seeker permits
to the
applicants.
[2]
The first respondent is the Minister of Police in National Government
and cited in his official capacity. The second respondent
is the
Minister of the Department of Home Affairs, and is a member of the
National Government. The third respondent is the Director
of the
Special Organised Crime Unit of the SAPS (the Hawks).The fourth
respondent is the Director of Public Prosecutions with offices
situated at the Polokwane Magistrates Court. The 5th respondent is
the Manager of the Polokwane Place of Safety with its Head Office
in
303 Nelson Mandela Drive Polokwane.
[3]
The respondents have challenged (in limine) the locus standi of the
deponent to the founding affidavit because he is not cited
as a party
to the application. The application is opposed on the grounds listed
below.
[4]
The deponent to the founding application is the father of the first
applicant. He states that the applicants have been denied
access to a
legal representative and visits by family members by the respondents
and there has been no contact with them. Consequently
it has been
impossible for the applicants to depose to affidevits themselves. It
is for this reason that the founding affidavit
is deposed to by him.
According
to Erasmus, Superior Court Practice, 2nd Edition, Service 1, at 01-
54
"Subrule
1 requires a notice of motion to be accompanied by at least one
affidavit. It is not necessary for the applicant to
file an
affidavit: a notice of motion can be supported by any person who is
in a position to provide the necessary material to
support the
claim." See also
Leath NO and Heath vs
Fraser
1952 (2) SA 33
(0) at 368."
[5]
The general rule is that the applicant must be a person having
locus
standi
to apply in that he has an interest in
the subject matter of the interdict. See
Standard
Bank of South Africa Ltd v Swart/and Municipality
2011
(5) SA 479
(WCC). The father of the first applicant has an interest
in the well-being of his son and the four applicants who hail from
his
country of origin. The applicants have in any event attached the
required power of attorney to the replying affidavit.
[6]
In the circumstances, the point is dismissed.
[7]
The respondents also alerted the court to an application that was
brought before Phatudi J in December 2017 allegedly on the
same facts
and by the same applicants which was struck off the roll. The
application is opposed on the grounds that the matter
entails
different applicants and is based on deferent facts and further that
in any event the order made by Phatudi J was not a
final order.
[8]
Erasmus, Superior Court Practice, 2"d Edition, Service 3 2016 at
01-284 states
"If a party pleads
that a point in issue is already res judicata because of an earlier
judgement in personam, he must show:
that there has already been a
prior judgement, in which the parties were the same, the same point
was in issue." See also
Jacobson v Havenga t/a Havengas
2001 (2)
SA 177
(T) at 179 E-F.
[9]
Having perused a copy of the order granted which was filed in a
supplementary answering affidavit it is clear that the parties
cited
as applicants and respondents differ completely. It is also clear
that the matter was struck of the roll. This application
also falls
to be dismissed.
MERITS
[10]
The applicants fled Ethiopia due to fear of being persecuted by
reason of their political opinions. They were part of a group
of 10
others who were allegedly detained en route South Africa in November
2017. They were held against their will by foreign men
in Polokwane
for 4 days before members of the Hawks Unit took them into their
custody. It is not very clear from their affidavit
how it came about
that they found themselves in the custody of these men. They allege
that they were on their way to seek asylum
in South Africa.
[11]
They fled Ethiopia via other sub-Saharan countries to Zimbabwe where
they bordered a kombi at Beit Bridge being under the impression
that
they were en route to South Africa.
[12]
They were however detained by those transporting them for 4 days
before the Hawks took custody of them. The applicants now
aver that
they were arrested and detained by the Hawks and have been in custody
since November 2017. During that time have been
housed at a place of
safety but denied access to their legal representatives and families.
They consider themselves detainees without
trial. They have not been
brought before a court to date and their status is unclear.
[13]
The applicants are of the view that as asylum seekers they were
encountered by the police who are under an obligation to arrange
a
transit permit which is valid for 14 days during which time they may
apply for asylum before the competent authority. Counsel
for the
applicants referred to the following sections from the
Immigration
Act 13 of 2002
and Refugee Regulations in this regard and I set out
the relevant sections below.
(a)
Section 23(1)
of the
Immigration Act provides
:
The Director-General may
issue an asylum transit permit to a person who at a port of entry
claims to be an asylum seeker, which
permit shall be valid for a
period of 14 days only.
(b)
Regulation 2(2) of the Refugee Regulations
provides;
Any person who entered
the Republic and is encountered in violation of the Aliens Control
Act, who has not submitted an application
pursuant to sub-regulation
2(1), but indicates an intention to apply for asylum, shall be issued
with an appropriate permit valid
for 14 days within which they must
approach a Refugee Reception Office to complete an asylum
application.
[14]
The applicants aver that in the alternative their detention is
neither within the ambit of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of
1977
(the CPA) nor of the
Immigration Act 13 of 2002
which stipulates that
their detention be confirmed by a court of law.
[15]
The respondents admit the detention of the applicants together with
10 others but maintain that because they are victims of
human
trafficking, their detention is sanctioned by the Prevention and
Combatting of Human Trafficking Act,
2013,Act 7
of 2013 (PCTPA) which
provides for the treatment and detention where necessary of victims
of human trafficking.
[16]
The respondents allege the police received information that certain
foreign individuals were kidnapped and are also victims
of human
trafficking. The police determined the location of the applicants.
They arrived at the identified premises and forced
open the locked
gate and door to a room where they found the 15 Ethiopians who were
in possession of their passports. The victims
were taken to the
Khuleka Place of Safety but were not arrested. Three suspects are
arrested in connection with the human trafficking
case involving the
applicants as victims and are currently facing trial. The first and
third applicants deposed to affidavits explaining
the circumstances
of their arrest on the 23rd November 2017. An interpreter was used
during this exercise.
[17]
The respondents have attached the affidavits signed by the first and
third applicant dated 23 November 2017. The first applicant
states
therein that he was seeking employment when he was kidnapped and kept
in terrible condition until the police discovered
them. The third
applicant contends that he was fleeing Ethiopia due to the political
hostility until he was kidnapped.
[18]
The applicants do not deny the contents of these affidavits but
challenge them on the basis that the commissioner of oath in
each of
these affidavits is a member of staff of the first respondent. The
respondents aver that they have already taken steps
to invoke the
provisions of the PCTPA but do not provide any details thereof. The
only issue is whether they are in lawful detention
at present.
[19]
Section 15 of the PCTPA reads as follows:
15.1
Despite the provisions of the
Immigration Act,
the
Director-General, Home Affairs may, in the prescribed manner and
subject to the prescribed conditions, issue a foreigner in respect
of
whom,
a)
a
report has been made to a police official as provided for in
section
19
, and
b)
the National Commissioner of the South African
Police has, in writing, confirmed to be a person who might be able to
assist in a
police investigation relating to an offence under Chapter
2,
a visitor 's visa in
terms of
section 11
(1) (a) of the
Immigration Act to
remain in the
Republic for a recovery and reflection period not exceeding three
months which may be extended once in terms of subsection
(4) for a
further period not exceeding three months for the purpose of
accessing the programmes referred to in
section 26
with the view to
enabling the foreigner to make informed decision regarding his or her
cooperation with law enforcement and prosecuting
authorities in the
investigation and prosecution of a case of trafficking in persons as
referred to in
section 16
(1) (b).
1.25
cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
15.2
If a foreigner referred to in subsection (1),
after a period of 30 days after he or she has been issued with a
visitor's visa to
remain in the Republic for a recovery and
reflection period, is unwilling or unable to co-operate with law
enforcement and prosecuting
authorities in the investigation of and
the prosecution of a trafficker, an investigation into his or her
circumstances must be
conducted by the Director- General, Social
Development in order to determine whether it is safe to repatriate
him or her to his
or her country of origin or the country from where
he or she has been trafficked.
15.3
If a foreigner referred to in subsection (2) is
still unwilling or unable to co-operate with law enforcement and
prosecuting authorities
in the investigation of and the prosecution
authorities in the investigation of and the prosecution of a
trafficker upon expiration
of the visitor's visa, the person must be
dealt with in terms of
section 31
(2) and
32
.
1.25
cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 150%">
15.4
If the Director - General, Social Development is
unable to complete an investigation referred to in subsection (2)
before the expiration
of the recovery and reflection period, he or
she must, in the prescribed manner, request the Director - General
Home Affairs to
extend, in the prescribed manner, that period for
further period not exceeding three months.
15.5
The issuing of a visitor's visa as provided for
in subsection (1) does not prevent or prejudice the competent
authority from conducting
any relevant investigating, provided that
due regard is given to the emotional state of the victim.
15.6
A foreigner referred to in subsection (1) in
respect of whom a decision by the Director-General. Home Affairs in
terms of subsection
(1) or (4) is pending, may not be deported.
Section 19.5
reads "
A police official to whom a report has been made in terms of
subsection (1) or (2) , or
section 8(1)
(b) or (2) (b) (I) or
9
(2) in
respect of an adult person or a police official who knows or ought
reasonably to have known or suspected that an adult person
is a
victim of trafficking
(a) (i) may where
necessary , and despite the proviso continued in
section 26
of the
Criminal Procedure Act, without
a warrant, enter any premises if he
or she on reasonable grounds believes that the safety of that person
is at risk or that the
person may be moved from those premises and
may use such force as my be reasonably necessary to overcome any
resistance against
entry to the premises, including the breaking of
any door or window of those premises, on condition that the police
official must
first audibly demand admission to the premises and
notify the purpose for which he or she seeks to enter those premises;
(ii) must where
necessary, as a measure of last resort and with the written consent
of the person concerned, take him or her into
protective custody if
there is an immediate threat to the safety of that person, for a
period until the station commander of the
police station in question
is satisfied that the treat has ceased to exist, where after the
police official may place that person
in temporary safe care referred
to in subsection (6);
(b) must within 24 hours,
refer the person to an accredited organisation and notify the
provincial department of social development
of the person; and
(c) must inform the
person suspected of being a victim of trafficking that he or she may
apply for a visitor's visa to remain in
the Republic for a recovery
and reflection period in terms of
section 15
if he or she is a
foreigner.
(6) A police official may
place an adult person referred to in subsection (5) in temporary safe
care, pending the transfer of that
person to an accredited
organisation.
(7) A police official
must, if it is reasonably possible to do so, render such assistance
to an adult person referred to in subsection
(5), as may be necessary
in the circumstance , including, but not limited to –
(a)
assisting that person to obtain medical
treatment; and
(b)
transporting that person to a place of temporary
safe care or an accredited organisation.
[20]
The Constitution provides that the rights contained in the Bill of
Rights are guaranteed to foreign nationals as well as citizens
unless
the contrary emerges from the Constitution. See
Telley
and Another v Minister of Home Affairs
1999
(3) SA 715
(D&CLD) at 727 C-729E.
[21]
Yacoob J in
Lawyers for Human Rights and another vs Minister of
home Affairs and another
[2004] ZACC 12
;
2004 (4) SA 125
(CC) stated as follows
regarding the status of foreign nationals.
"This Bill of Rights
is a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. It enshrines the
rights of all people in our country and
affirms the democratic values
of human dignity, equality and freedom ... ...Foreign Nationals will
have standing where rights are
threatened or infringed."
[22]
There are competing pieces of legislation at play in this matter. On
the one hand are the applicant's rights in terms of the
Constitution
of South Africa 108 of 1996 and the Refugee Act 130 of 1998. On the
other hand is the State interest in preventing
human trafficking
which is the object of the PCTPA.
[23]
Trafficking in persons violates constitutionally entrenched rights of
the victims of trafficking in that the values of , freedom
and
freedom of expression dignity, equality, and the right not to be
deprived of freedom arbitrarily without just cause nor to
be treated
in a cruel, inhumane or degrading way are guaranteed by our
Constitution.
[24]
In SL
and others v The Minister of Home Affairs and Others
High
Court Gauteng case no.2016/01352 Modiba J states:
"The United Nations
Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons,
Especially women and children, supplementing
and the United Nations
Convention against Trans Organised Crime (UN Protocol) confirms that
trafficking in persons is a complex
global phenomenon, perpetrated by
organised crime syndicates often operating across several criminal
jurisdictions. The prevention
, detection and prosecution of
incidents of trafficking in persons as well as the identification and
protection of suspected victims
of trafficking in persons requires a
coordinated response by various government agencies also require
extra jurisdictional powers
to deal with incidents of trafficking in
persons and smuggling perpetrated beyond South African borders. Until
the enactment of
the PCTPA, South African criminal legal system
lacked the capacity to deal with the offence of trafficking in
persons."
[25]
Whilst the applicants claim that they are also asylum seekers, they
seem to lose sight of the fact that the state agencies
also have a
right over them as witnesses or victims of human trafficking.
[26]
It appears to suit their case for this court to find that the
applicants are only seeking asylum because they may be treated
under
that Act. In fact counsel for the applicants on a question by the
Court admitted that they would prefer to be treated as
asylum seekers
than victims of human trafficking. Before their rights as asylum
seekers are considered, it is important to consider
that it is not in
dispute that the applicants are victims of human trafficking.
[27]
It is clear now that the applicants are in the country of destination
for the purpose of asylum, the fact that they can provide
information
and evidence against human traffickers is of little consequence to
them.
[28]
Applicant's counsel clearly and on more than one occasion conceded
that it is common cause that they were victims of human
trafficking.
To that end I find that their being dealt with under the PCTPA takes
precedence as the State interest in such a serious
matter outweighs
their right to be treated as asylum seekers which status must be
determined in another forum by the competent
authority in terms of
the Refugee Act. The importance of curbing human trafficking is
paramount and at the heart of national and
international efforts to
protect human rights against any kind of slavery.
[29]
Their continued detention at an accredited institution or place of
safety for the purpose of bringing human traffickers to
book is
paramount and takes preference over any alleged right they may have
as asylum seekers which status they may well apply
for after the
purpose for which they are required in terms of the PCTPA has been
fulfilled. The applicants are not in custody as
detainees but as
witnesses under circumstances governed by law. Their release to
pursue their status as asylum seekers is secondary
and the harm that
they allege to suffer is at best an inconvenience best but there are
no irreparable consequences if the provisions
of the PCTPA are
followed.
[30]
There are three requirements for the grant of a final interdict. See
Hotz v Cape Town University
2017 (2) SA 485
(SCA) at 496
G-H,4961 and 97G-H.These are " A clear right on the part of the
applicant, an injury actually committed or reasonably
apprehended and
the absence of any other satisfactory remedy available to the
applicant."
The
applicants have failed to demonstrate a clear right.
[31]
Modiba J in SL supra 24 supra states at page 11 para 25
"Given that the
suspected victims of trafficking are often not in a position to act
in their best interest, a determination
of their status can simply
not be made based on information received from them. A determination
whether a person is a victim of
trafficking in persons requires a
triangulated determination. To address this problem, the PCTP Act
provides for the accommodation
of suspected victims at a place of
safety and an assessment to be conducted by the Department of Social
Development on the strength
of information received from members of
the second respondent. The second respondent (Minister of Police)
ought to furnish information
gathered from its investigations to
assist the department of social development to properly assess the
detainees. An investigation
by members of the second respondent is in
any event pivotal to secure the prosecution of any persons who are
found to have participated
in the trafficking in persons and sexual
exploitation value chain of the detainees as provided for in the PCTP
Act."
[32]
The applicants have not been apprised of their rights in the above
regard. They have been detained for approximately 3 months
(taking
the date on which they deposed to affidavits into account) with no
compliance with the legislation. It is fundamental that
their rights
as enshrined in the constitution must be protected. The
non-compliance with the act in the following respects has
given rise
to the application being brought.
[33]
Our courts have on several occasions expressed their disquiet at the
failure of government officials, including the Departments
officials,
to respect the rights of individuals they deal with and to act in
accordance with their duties imposed by the Constitution.
See
Nyathi
v MEC for the Gauteng Department of Health
&
Another
2008
(5) SA 54
(CC). It was also stated thus in Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd
and others v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council
&
Others
[1998] ZACC 17
;
1999 (1) SA 374
(CC) para 58:
"It
seems central to the conception of our constitutional order that the
Legislature and Executive in every sphere are constrained
by the
principle that they may exercise no power and perform no function
beyond that conferred upon them by law. At least in this
sense, then,
the principle of legality s implied within the terms of the Interim
Constitution. Whether the principle of the rule
of law has greater
content than the principle of legality is not necessary for us to
decide here. We need merely hold that fundamental
to the interim
constitution is a principle of legality." I find that these
principle has been breached.
[34]
The first respondent through its functionaries has failed to perform
their obligations in terms of the PCTPA. These obligations
and the
non-compliance therewith are set out below.
[35]
There has been non-compliance with section 19(5) in that the police
official who comes into contact with a victim of human
trafficking
must inform the person suspected of being a victim of trafficking
that he or she may apply for a visitor's visa to
remain in the
Republic for a recovery and reflection period in terms of section 15
if he or she is a foreigner. This was not done
and the omission to do
so has impacted on other rights and obligations in terms of the
PCTPA.
[36]
The issuing of a visitors permit by the Director General: Home
Affairs to a foreigner in terms of the PCTPA is only possible
if the
National Commissioner of the South African Police Service has, in
writing, confirmed such foreigner to be a person who might
be able to
assist in a police investigation. It follows that the matter must be
brought to the attention of the National Commissioner.
There is
nothing from the papers to suggest that that has been done.
[37]
The visitor's visa entitles foreigners detained in terms of the PCTPA
to access fundamental benefits which are aimed at curtailing
and
minimising any trauma that may have or will suffer: The section reads
as follows :
26(1) An accredited
organisation-
(a)
Must offer a programme aimed at –
(1)
The provision of accommodation to adult victims
of trafficking;
(2)
The provision of counselling to adult victims of
trafficking; and
(3)
The re-integration of adult victims of
trafficking into their families and communities ; and
(b)
May offer a programme aimed at –
(i)
The provision of rehabilitation and therapeutic
services to adult victims of trafficking; or
(ii)
The provision of education and skills development
training to adult victims of trafficking.
[38]
The very purpose of accessing the accredited the programmes is for
such victim to make informed decisions regarding his or
her
cooperation with law enforcement and prosecuting authorities in the
investigation and prosecution of the case. The purpose
of the issue
of the visitor's visa is for a recovery and reflection for a period
not exceeding three months which may be extended
only once for a
period of three months. The words recovery and reflection are
intended to safeguard the victim whose rights are
not protected
absent such visitor's visa.
[39]
Section 19(8) of the PCTPA places certain peremptory obligations on
the Provincial Department of Social Development which has
been
notified in terms of section (5) in that such Department must without
delay and in the prescribed manner assess whether the
person
concerned is a victim of trafficking in which case a letter of
recognition must be immediately be issued to the victim.
[40]
The letter of recognition in turn has significant consequences for
the victim as per section 22(3) which reads;
"A letter of
recognition that an adult person is a victim of trafficking or a
finding by the provincial department of social
development after an
assessment referred to in section 18(6) that a child is a victim of
trafficking serves as a ground for the
withdrawal of the criminal
prosecution or the discharge of the victim of trafficking if the
prosecutor is satisfied that the offence
was committed as a direct
result of the person's position as a victim of trafficking.
[41]
The duty to initiate the process rests with the police official who
encounters the victim. Section 19(5) (b) and (c) places
on such
police official the duty to inform the victim that he may apply for
such visa and to notify the provincial department of
social
development of that person. The words must make it peremptory for
that police official and a failure on his/her part upsets
the entire
chain of mechanisms available to the victim guaranteeing their
rights. It is clear that the applicants were not advised
of their
right to apply for the visitors permit as is required in the above
section. The purpose of being in care at a facility
is for recovery
and reflection in order that he may make an informed decision about
his position. It is also a requirement that
if he is held in
protective custody same must occur with his consent in writing.
[42]
The PCTPA is South Africa's mechanism to assist in the global war
against human trafficking. If our own law enforcement agencies
do not
strictly adhere tu the legislation, victims of trafficking will
become unwilling to join in the cause against such trafficking
when
their rights and dignity are trampled upon in a manner that amounts
to secondary victimisation.
[43]
There will always be such cases where those fleeing their countries
of origin seeking asylum are intercepted and captured by
perpetrators
of human trafficking and subsequently rescued by law enforcement
agencies. In both scenarios, they will inevitably
be in detention or
custody.
[44]
In the quest for their freedom, the temptation to be released into
the care of the relevant asylum controlling authorities
is greater
than the prospect of being housed in accredited state institutions
until the investigation and prosecution of human
traffickers is
complete. This is so because with being granted asylum comes the
prospect of being free to sojourn in the country
of their intended
destination immediately upon their status as asylum seekers is
determined.
[45]
The objectives of the PCPTA in protecting the rights of victims and
in combatting the scourge off human trafficking must take
precedence
over the desire of asylum seekers to flee their countries of origin
because in any event they are no longer in that
country.
[46]
The applicant's rights are guaranteed with in the PCTPA and there are
other remedies therein which may be invoked to ensure
that the
applicants are not unduly prejudiced nor is their right to liberty in
any way compromised. The safeguards in the event
of them not wishing
to co-operate freely are also contained therein.
[47]
In the result I find that while their detention has not been in
compliance with the PCTPA, it is not unlawful. However, there
is a
need for this court to issue certain directives with regard to
compliance with PCTPA.
[48]
The issue of their status as asylum seekers may well be determined
after compliance with the PCTPA.
[49]
The applicants were never in any immediate threat of being deported
because their presence for now is in the State interest.
[50]
In the result I make the following order:
[50.1] The matter is
declared as urgent and accordingly the time periods and forms of
service are dispensed with to allow the matter
to be heard as such;
[50.2] The application
for the applicants to be released from the Polokwane Welfare Centre
(the Khuseleka One Stop Centre) is dismissed
with costs. The
applicants are placed in temporary safe care at the (Khuseleka One
Stop Centre) in terms of section 19(6) of the
Prevention and
Combatting of the Human Trafficking Act 7 of 2013, pending their
transfer to an accredited organisation. Such transfer
is to be
effected within 30 days of date of this order.
[50.3] The application
for an order directing the respondents to issue Asylum Seekers
Permits in accordance with Section 22 of the
Refugee Act is also
dismissed.
[50.4] The First
Respondent is directed to initiate the process of the applicants
obtaining the visitor's visa by complying with
all the provisions of
the Prevention and Combatting in Human Trafficking Act 7 of 2013.
This must be done within one week of the
date hereof. Further to
ensure that the applicants have access to medical facilities
immediately.
[50.5] The Provincial Head of
the Department of Social Development is required to comply with all
his/her obligations that
are set out in the Prevention and Combatting
of Human Trafficking Act 7 of 2013 within one week of the date hereof
including compliance
with the obligations in section 15(1) and
section 22 thereof.
________________
D NAIR
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
POLOKWANE;
LIMPOPO DIVISION
APPEARANCE:
COUNSEL
FOR THE APPLICANT
:
ADVOCATE
G MAKAPANE
INSTRUCTED
BY
:
MAKAPANE ATTORNEYS
COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT
:
ADVOCATE
M E NGOETJANE
INSTRUCTED
BY
:
STATE ATTORNEY
DATE
OF HEARING
:
8 FEBRUARY
2018
DATE
OF JUDGEMENT
:
12
FEBRUARY 2018