CCT56/03

[2004] ZACC 20

2005 (2) SA 359 (CC)

2005 (4) BCLR 301 (CC)

O'Regan J

17-18 August 2004

26 November 2004

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/2182

High Court judgment reported as Rail Commuters Action Group and Others v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail and Others (No 1) 2003 (5) SA 518 (C) ; 2003 (3) BCLR 288 (C). The respondents sought and were granted leave to appeal by the High Court to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). Applicants lodged a cross-appeal which was granted by the High Court. Three judgments delivered by the SCA are reported as Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail and Others v Rail Commuters Action Group and Others 2003 (6) SA 349 (SCA) ; 2003 (12) BCLR 1363 (SCA).

Application for leave to appeal against decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal. The applicants sought to hold certain organs of state responsible for the safety and security of rail commuters. They sued Metrorail and the South African Rail Commuter Corporation ("the SARCC"), which were created under the Legal Succession to the South African Transport Services Act, 9 of 1989, and are responsible for providing train services nationwide. Both are organs of state but their statutory mandate entitles them to pursue a profit. They also sued the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Safety and Security. O'Regan J, for a unanimous Court, held that although Metrorail and the SARCC disclaimed responsibility for ensuring the safety and security of commuters, arguing that this was a police function, they had a responsibility to take reasonable steps to fill the policing void. The Court issued a declaratory order to the effect that Metrorail and the SARCC have an obligation to ensure that reasonable measures are taken to provide for the security of rail commuters.