IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO. 2025-046253
In the matter between:
MARTHINUS GERT FERREIRA Applicant
And
AFISWITCH (PTY) LTD First Respondent
IDEMIA IDENTITY & SECURITY FRANCE SAS Second Respondent
ADVENT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (USA) Third Respondent
HURU TECHNOLOGIES (PTY) LTD Fourth Respondent
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
(4) Date:12 February 2026
Signature: _
2
JUDGMENT
NYATHI J
A. Introduction
[1] This is an urgent application in which the self -represented applicant seeks
far-reaching relief against the respondents in relation to the processing of his
personal information within the criminal-record verification ecosystem. The relief
includes broad interdicts and R40 million in constitutional and general damages.
[2] The fourth respondent (HURU) filed heads opposing the application and
contends, in summary, that it is a reseller for Afiswitch, that only SAPS can
amend official criminal -record source data, that applicant’s information was
processed with consent, and that the urgent relief sought is incompetent on
motion.
[3] The applicant’s filings and oral submissions allege, among others, contradictory
verification outputs (simultaneous “HIT/CLEAR”), racial misclassification as
“ASIAN”, ongoing dissemination, arrests, and economic harm. He also sought
condonation for late filing of his heads and ancillary material.
B. Issues for determination
[4] On the urgent roll, the determinative questions are:
3
4.1 whether urgency has been established;
4.2 whether the application is fatally defective for non-joinder of the
source custodian of criminal-record data;
4.3 whether the applicant has shown a prima facie right warranting
interim relief; and
4.4 whether damages can be awarded on the current papers.
C. Urgency
[5] The applicant attributes urgency to continuing dissemination of inaccurate
personal information, the ripple effects on employability, and the risk of further
arrests. He relies in part on recent professional correspondence and the
asserted pattern of verification contradictions.
[6] The opposing case is that the application is founded on self-created urgency: the
underlying complaints have persisted for years; any immediate risk is not
established; and suitable statutory channels exist, notably with the Information
Regulator and the SAPS source custodian . HURU further points out that the
most recent “Illicit Activity Check” reflects “clear”, undermining the proposition of
ongoing imminent prejudice. [emphasis added].
[7] The applicant’s own materials show that his grievances span approximately
thirteen years, reflecting a long-running dispute rather than a freshly precipitated
crisis. In circumstances where no new, objectively verifiable inflection point
compels peremptory intervention, urgency is not established.
4
[8] On this basis alone, the matter falls to be struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
However, given the extent of the submissions, I deal briefly with the further
dispositive defects.
D. Non-joinder of the source custodian (fatal)
[9] It is common cause on the papers that SAPS is the holder of the criminal-record
database and that only SAPS can amend or correct source data. That is
precisely the information whose accuracy the applicant ultimately seeks to
impugn and correct. Any effective order compelling alteration of the impugned
records would operate upon the source custodian.
[10] The non -joinder of the Minister of Police/SAPS is accordingly fatal to the
application in the form presently advanced. The urgent court is not the forum to
grant structural relief against entities not before it, particularly where the
respondents’ pleaded role is downstream processing and disclosure rather than
custodial authorship or authority to correct.
E. Interim interdict test: prima facie right and balance of convenience
[11] Even if urgency and joinder were overcome, the applicant does not, on these
motion papers, establish a protectable prima facie right requiring an urgent
restraining order. The record reveals material disputes concerning:
5
11.1 who is responsible for data creation vs. downstream processing;
11.2 the meaning and provenance of “HIT/CLEAR” inconsistencies;
and
11.3 the existence and accuracy of the alleged racial
misclassification.
[12] On the balance of convenience , the broad orders sought would effectively
enjoin actors in a multi-layered system from processing or disclosing data used
daily for identity and criminal -record verification, with systemic implications
inadequately canvassed on affidavit. The record does not justify that intrusion on
an urgent, contested footing.
F. Alternative remedies
[13] The Applicant’s own papers and stance of the fourth respondent confirm the
existence of statutory and administrative pathways —notably recourse to the
Information Regulator and engagement with SAPS for source-level correction.
In urgent motion, the availability of such pathways, coupled with disputed facts,
militates against the grant of final or near-final relief.
G. Damages on the urgent motion Court roll
[14] The applicant seeks R40 million in constitutional and general damages. The
quantification, causation, and responsibility for any proven harm are disputed
and cannot be fairly resolved on affidavit. Such a claim (if pursued) belongs in
6
the ordinary course, on properly ventilated papers or at trial, not in urgent motion
with contested facts and a non-joined source custodian.
H. Condonation
[15] The applicant also sought condonation for the late filing of his heads and related
material, attributing the delay to respondents’ late filings and to his status as a
lay litigant. In view of the conclusions on urgency and non -joinder, it is
unnecessary to determine condonation; nothing turns on it. If required, I would,
without deciding, assume in his favour that condonation be granted.
I. Costs
[16] The respondents have been put to the expense of opposing a non-urgent
application, seeking structurally defective relief. The ordinary rule must apply.
The fourth respondent sought a costs order and flagged the costs of two counsel
for certain respondents should the matter proceed. On the record and
complexity, a costs order on the party-and-party scale, including the costs of two
counsel, including Senior Counsel where so employed, is warranted.
Order
[17] The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
[18] Alternatively, and independently, the application is dismissed for non -joinder of
the source custodian (SAPS/Minister of Police).
[19] The applicant is to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of two
counsel, including Senior Counsel where so employed.
Date of hearing: 16 April 2025
Date of Judgment: 12 February 2026
On behalf of the Applicant: In person
On behalf of the First Respondent: Adv. P Daniels SC
With him: Adv. A Kohler
Attorneys for the Respondents: CDH Inc
E-mail: paige.winfield@cdhlegal.com
On behalf of the Fourth Respondents: Adv. K. Hopkins SC
With him: Adv. VJ Heideman
Attorneys for the 4th Respondent: Cox Yeats
E-mail: NNtuli@coxyeats.co .za
J.S. NYATHI
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
7
8
Delivery: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal
representatives by email and uploaded on the CaseLines electronic platform. The date for hand-
down is deemed to be 12 February 2026.