Rail Commuters Action Group and Others v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Langa DCJ, Mokgoro J, Moseneke J, O'regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van Der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J
• Judgment Date: 26 November 2004
• Citation: 2005 (2) SA 359 (CC)
• Docket Number: CCT 56/03
• Counsel: M Seligson SC and R P Hoffman SC (with them D J Dippenaar) for the applicants. J J Gauntlett SC and J N S du Plessis SC (with them K Pillay) for the first and second respondents. M Donen SC (with him M Salie) for the third respondent. P B Hodes SC and R T Williams SC for the fourth respondent.
• Court: Constitutional Court

O'Regan J:

[1] This application for leave to appeal raises the question of who bears responsibility for ensuring the safety of F passengers travelling on commuter trains. The applicants assert that all the respondents bear obligations to ensure the safety of passengers, and also that all the respondents have failed to meet those obligations. The first three respondents argue that the South G African Police Service (SAPS) bears the primary responsibility to ensure the safety of passengers, not the institutions that operate the trains nor the Minister of Transport.

[2] The first applicant, the Rail Commuters Action Group (the commuter association), is a voluntary association representing the H interests of rail commuters in the Western Cape. The second applicant is Leslie van Minnen (Mr Van Minnen), a retired personnel manager. The remaining applicants are Jane Styer (the third applicant), Judin Coulsen (the fourth applicant), Raymond Love (the fifth applicant), Hester Fouché (the sixth applicant), Miriam Adolf (the seventh applicant), Berendina Fuller (the eighth applicant) and Zolani Matyeni I (the ninth applicant). According to the applicants, the third to sixth applicants and ninth applicant all suffered assaults or injuries while travelling on Metrorail trains, while the seventh and eighth applicants are widows of men who were murdered while travelling on Metrorail trains, and the second applicant is the father of a 20-year old boy who died as a result of being attacked and J

O'Regan J

stabbed while travelling on a Metrorail train. The second to ninth applicants are all individuals who A have a direct interest in the relief sought. The first applicant is a loose association of people formed at a meeting. The respondents do not dispute the capacity of the first applicant to institute legal proceedings. Given the fact that the other applicants clearly have standing and capacity to sue and that no relief is sought in the B interest of the first applicant alone, there is no need to consider whether the first applicant has the capacity to sue.

[3] The first respondent is Transnet Ltd, a public company with share capital, but in which the State is the only shareholder. It was formed in terms of s 32 of the Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Act 9 of 1989 as amended (the SATS Act). C Metrorail is one of the five business units of Transnet Ltd, but it does not have separate legal personality. I shall ordinarily refer to the first respondent as Metrorail, but at times where I am speaking specifically of Transnet as a legal entity, I shall refer to 'Transnet'. The second respondent is the South African Rail Commuter Corporation Ltd (the Commuter Corporation), a legal person D established in terms of s 22 of the SATS Act and registered in terms of the Companies Act 61 of 1973. The third respondent is the Minister of Transport, and the fourth respondent is the Minister of Safety and Security. In the Cape High Court (the High Court) and the Supreme Court of Appeal (the SCA), the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for Safety and Security in the Western Cape was cited as fifth E respondent. No relief was granted against the fifth respondent by the High Court. Upon appeal to this Court, the applicants do not seek relief against the fifth respondent, who is therefore not before us. F

Facts

[4] Juan van Minnen, the son of the second applicant and a final-year engineering student, was travelling home on the Metrorail train service at about 19:00 on a Friday evening in June 2001 when he was stabbed by G unknown assailants. He died the next day in hospital. A few weeks later, on 28 June 2001, a public meeting was held in Fish Hoek in the Western Cape to protest the level of violence on commuter trains in the Western Cape. At that meeting, the commuter association was formed and a committee of nine volunteer members was appointed by those present. A report-back meeting was held on 31 July 2001 which was H attended by Mr André Harrison, the regional manager of Metrorail in the Western Cape. At the end of this second meeting the committee was mandated by a show of hands to institute legal proceedings.

[5] On 6 August 2001 the applicants' legal representatives wrote to all the respondents requesting access to information and documents. After an exchange of letters, a wide range of documents was I provided by the respondents. On 27 December 2001 proceedings were instituted by the first three applicants in the High Court. These applicants also sought early discovery of further documents in terms of Uniform Rule of Court 35(1) read with Rule 35(13). On 12 February 2002, an agreement J

O'Regan J

between the parties in relation to early discovery was made an order of court by the High Court and the A respondents discovered some 55 000 pages of information. The parties referred to this process as 'informal discovery' and it is referred to as such in the High Court order. After receiving the discovered documents, the applicants filed a supplementary founding affidavit at the end of March 2002, in which the remaining applicants were joined. B

[6] The relief sought by the applicants in the High Court changed several times. The amended notice of motion which formed part of the record before this Court sought relief in the following terms:

'1.

It is declared that the manner in which the rail commuter C services in the Western Cape are:

1.1

Operated by the first respondent;

1.2

controlled and funded by the second respondent;

insofar as the provision of proper and adequate safety and security services and the control of access to and egress from rail D facilities used by rail commuters in the Western Cape are concerned, is not in the public interest as contemplated in s 15(1) (insofar as first respondent is concerned), and s 23(1) (insofar as second respondent is concerned), of the Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Act 9 of 1989, as amended (the SATS Act). E

2.

It is declared that the manner in which the rail commuter services in the Western Cape are:

2.1

Operated by the first respondent;

2.2

controlled and funded by the second respondent;

2.3

policed by the South African Police Service;

2.4

monitored by the fifth respondent; F

insofar as the provision of proper and adequate safety and security services and the control of access to and egress from rail facilities used by rail commuters in the Western Cape are concerned, is wrongful, unlawful and in violation of the constitutional rights of rail commuters to life, to freedom from all forms of violence from G private sources, to human dignity, freedom of movement and to property.

3.

It is declared that the first respondent has a contractual obligation to convey fare-paying passengers safely and securely on commuter rail services in the Western Cape.

4.

It is declared that: H

4.1

The first and second respondents have a legal duty to protect the lives and property of members of the public who commute by rail, whilst they are making use of the rail transport services provided by the first and second respondent;

4.2

the first and second respondents are in breach of the said I duty, in that they have negligently failed to provide and/or fund proper and adequate safety and security services and/or by their failure to control access to and egress from rail commuter facilities used by rail commuters in the Western Cape. J

O'Regan J

5.

The respondents are directed forthwith to take all such A steps (including interim steps) as are reasonably necessary to put in place proper and adequate safety and security services which shall include, but not be limited to, steps to properly control access to and egress from rail commuter facilities used by rail commuters in the Western Cape, in order to protect those rights of rail commuters, B as are enshrined in the Constitution, to life, to freedom from all forms of violence from private sources, to human dignity, freedom of movement and to property.

6.

The first to third respondents are directed to ensure that between them and the institutions for which they are responsible, jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved, an C adequate amount is allocated towards the provision of proper and adequate safety and security services, including but not limited to services to ensure control of access to and egress from commuter services in the Western Cape.

7.

In the alternative to paras 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 above and only in D the event that the relief claimed in such paragraph is not granted: The first and second respondents are directed, within such time as the Honourable Court may order, to comply strictly with and give effect to all such terms and conditions contained in the current and future operational, business and/or other agreements between first and second respondents dealing with the provision, monitoring and funding of E safety and security services for its staff, the public and commuters making use of rail facilities within the Western Cape, provided always that the terms and conditions contained are and remain in the interest of the public as contemplated in the SATS Succession Act.

8.

The first and second respondents are interdicted and restrained from permitting commuter rail passengers to travel on the commuter rail network in the Western Cape in any carriage which has F doors which do not function.

9.

First respondent is interdicted and restrained from G operating rail commuter services in the Western Cape otherwise than in accordance with the terms of its general operating instructions.

10.

It is confirmed that the applicants were entitled to early discovery in terms of...