2
REASONS
MODIBA, J
[1] On 25 November 2025, after hearing counsel for the parties on the question
of urgency, I granted an order removing the above matter from the roll.
Below I set out ex tempo more reasons for the order as requested by the
applicants.
[2] The first applicant, Ukraine Security Company (Pty) Ltd (USC) was
incorporated in August 2024. Its main object is to provide security services
in the community in which it is located. It alleged that in doing so, it assists
the South African Police Service s (SAPS) and the community to combat
crime. It has agreements with the residents and businesses operating in the
Ivory Park/Tembisa area to protect their properties and persons by providing
an emergency response, crime prevention, threat deterrence and ord er
maintenance services.
[3] On 8 October, USC’s sole director, Mr Madi was arrested and detained at
the Tembisa Police Station on charges of murder, attempted murder and car
hi-jacking. He telephoned the second applicant Mr Thabiso Lebea who is
USC’s Operations Commander, Mr Mpumelel o Magagula its Camera
Installer, Mr Dumolakhe Mdluli, its bookkeeper, and Dengizwe Majola and
Desire Masiya its ground officers and instructed them to report to the
Tembisa Police Station. On arrival, their mobile devices and Mr Lebea’s
firearm were seized by the police. They were later released but the seized
items were not handed back to them. The lawfulness of the seizure is in
dispute between the parties. The applicants alleged that the seizure was
unlawful. The respondents allege that it was lawful.
3
[4] The applicants seek an order directing the respondents to return the seized
items to USC’s employees. They contend that they seized mobile devices
for business purposes and that since the y were seized, USC’s business has
experienced a substantial decline. This is what in their view renders the
application urgent. The respondents opposed urgency on the basis that the
applicants waited for more than a month after its cause of action arose before
bringing the application. They also contend that the y would have returned
the mobile devices to the first applicant’s employees had they given the
investigating officer access information for the seized mobile devices and
consented to the information contained therein being copied.
[5] The respondents allege that on 26 September 2025, USC’s vehicle opened
fire at a vehicle that was parked near an electricity transformer box in Ivory
Park, shooting and killing two males, and wound ing a third person. One of
the males was a police officer . The USC motor vehicle then sped off.
Another person who witnessed the incident, took the victim’s motor vehicle
and sped off. The victim’s motor vehicle was found in an unspecified place
in Ivory Park. The person who drove it from the scene of the shooting was
arrested and taken to Tembisa Police Station where he identified Mr Madi
as the person who was involved in the shooting incident referred to above.
Mr Madi had been detained in connection with other charges.
[6] When questioned by the police about the shooting incident, Mr Madi denied
knowledge of the incident. It was for that reason that he was asked to call
his staff. According to the police, the above-mentioned items were seized to
investigate the charges for which Mr Madi was arrested. The y believe that
the information contained in the mobile devices will assist them in their
investigation.
4
[7] The police alleged that they offered to return the seized mobile devices to
USC’S employees five weeks ago provided they consented to the
information contained in the devices being downloaded. The employees
refused. Their denial is reiterated by the applicants in their replying affidavit
where they contend that the police are inti midating the employees as they
have not arrested them for any charges and the seizure was unlawful .
Notwithstanding the applicants’ stance as set out in their founding and
replying affidavits regarding the seizure of the mobile devices and their
refusal to consent to the information contained therein being downloaded, in
an unexpected turn, during oral argument, counsel for the applicants
tendered the required consent, contending that the police are unreasonably
withholding the seized items.
[8] This tender diffused the urgency the applicants relied on. Having tendered
the consent of the USC employees, the applicants do not meet the test for
urgency because they have not shown that if this application is not heard on
an urgent basis they will be denied substantive redress in due cour se. I f
USC’s employees give the police the required consent as tendered ,
information will be copied and the devices returned to them.
[9] Ordinarily, I would have struck off the matter from the roll with costs but
did not do so because prior to instituting this application, USC engaged
various officials within the police service to try and recover the seized items,
but its correspondences were never responded to. Although it is common
cause that the police called on the USC employees to consent to information
being copied from their mobile devices, it is unclear how and precisely when
were the employees informed that their consent was require d as USC’s
correspondences were never replied to. The respondents’ answering
affidavit was also very economical with this information . The dispute
between the parties may have been resolved earlier had the respondents
6
Date of judgment: 28 November 2025
MODE OF DELIVERY: These reasons were transmitted to the parties’ legal
representatives by email, uploading on CaseLines and release to SAFLII. The
date and time for delivery is deemed to be 2pm.
7