Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Police and Others

Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd, a large private security company, lawfully possessed approximately 8 500 firearms under licences issued in terms of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000. After the resignation of its designated responsible person, Fidelity discovered that approximately 700 firearm licences had not been renewed timeously and had therefore terminated automatically by operation of law under s 28 of the Act. Fidelity attempted to submit late renewal applications, but these were refused by the SAPS pursuant to a directive issued by the National Commissioner in February 2016. Fidelity was also allegedly prevented from submitting fresh licence applications for the same firearms. Fidelity approached the Gauteng High Court seeking, inter alia, acceptance of late renewals, constitutional relief, or alternatively permission to lodge new licence applications. Following the Constitutional Court’s decision in SA Hunters upholding the constitutionality of ss 24 and 28, Fidelity narrowed its case to whether it was entitled to apply afresh for new licences for firearms whose licences had lapsed. The High Court dismissed the application with punitive costs, and Fidelity appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld in part. The High Court’s order was set aside and replaced with an order declaring that Fidelity is entitled to apply afresh for new licences to possess the firearms listed, and directing the Designated Firearms Officer to accept and process such applications in terms of the Act. All other relief was dismissed. Costs were apportioned, with Fidelity bearing certain appeal costs and the respondents bearing the costs of the hearing on 11 March 2021.

This judgment clarifies that the Firearms Control Act does not impose a permanent bar on relicensing firearms whose licences have lapsed. It confirms that termination of a licence under s 28 does not extinguish the ability to apply anew, providing important guidance to firearm owners and administrators. The case reinforces principled statutory interpretation and curbs overly restrictive administrative practices by SAPS inconsistent with the Act.