Bertie Van Zyl (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister for Safety and Security and Others

The applicants, large farming enterprises in Limpopo, employed some of their own general workers as part‑time, unarmed in‑house security guards to protect their farms, employees and property. These guards performed basic access control and patrol functions, and the SAPS was contacted in emergencies. SAPS officials viewed these employees and their supervisors as unregistered private security service providers under the Private Security Industry Regulation Act 56 of 2001 and arrested some of them. Continued threats of arrest followed. The applicants challenged the applicability and constitutionality of sections 20(1)(a) and 28 of the Act, contending that the Act was overbroad and irrational insofar as it regulated in‑house security personnel.

Condonation for late filing was granted. The appeal against the High Court’s declaration of constitutional invalidity of sections 28(2) and 28(3)(b) was upheld, and that declaration was set aside. The High Court’s interpretation upholding the constitutionality of section 20(1)(a) was confirmed. Sections 20(1)(a), 28(2) and 28(3)(b) of the Act were all held to be constitutional.

The case clarifies the scope of the Private Security Industry Regulation Act and confirms that in‑house security is not subject to the registration requirement in section 20(1)(a), while remaining subject to the Code of Conduct under section 28. It is an important authority on purposive constitutional interpretation, the avoidance of overbreadth through contextual reading, and the balance between legislative clarity and judicial reading‑down under the rule of law.