Mnyungula v Minister of Safety and Security

In Mnyungula v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in South African criminal procedure. Mnyungula sought an order for the return of his motor vehicle, which had been seized, without a warrant, by the third respondent, a police sergeant.

He brought the application on the basis that the seizure had been unlawful, in that the sergeant had not had reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle had been stolen; in fact, his belief had been incorrect. Mnyungula had purchased the vehicle lawfully.

The seizure was purportedly effected in terms of sections 20 and 22 of the CPA.

The court held that, in interpreting ss 20 and 22, the onus was on the police to prove, objectively, the existence of ample facts upon which, at the time of their acting without a warrant, they based their reasonable belief "that the article was concerned in the commission or suspected commission of an offense."

The court further held that the sergeant had known, at the time that he formed his alleged "reasonable belief," that the information regarding the previous owner of the vehicle, which had been furnished to him by Mnyungula before the sergeant had formed his alleged belief, had not been checked. He had thus acted recklessly and in a most unreasonable manner.

Objectively viewed, therefore, the sergeant had not had, and could not have formed, a "reasonable belief" on the information that had been at hand at the time of the seizure. The seizure of the vehicle had therefore been irregular.

The court noted that the existence of such a "reasonable belief" could be rebutted by the person whose article had been seized by showing that the "facts" or "grounds" relied upon by the policeman, in forming his reasonable belief, had not existed or had been false. In terms of its inherent powers, the court could then set aside the seizure in the interests of justice, and order that the seized article be returned to the owner of such article.

The court also noted that the evidence against the applicant was very flimsy. He would likely not be successfully prosecuted. The vehicle should therefore be returned to him unconditionally.

The seizure of Mnyungula's motor vehicle was set aside and the respondents ordered to return the vehicle to him immediately.

Notes