The applicants were a commuter action group and individuals (or their family members) who suffered assaults, injuries, or deaths while traveling on Metrorail trains in the Western Cape. They instituted proceedings seeking declaratory, mandatory, and prohibitory relief against Metrorail (a division of Transnet Ltd), the SA Rail Commuters Corporation (which ensures provision of commuter services), the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Safety and Security. The applicants alleged that crime on trains was rife and that the respondents failed to meet their obligations to ensure passenger safety. The High Court granted relief against the first three respondents, declaring that the manner of service provision was not "in the public interest" as required by the SATS Act and that they bore legal duties to protect commuters. The Supreme Court of Appeal overturned this, finding disputes of fact and that the SAPS bore primary responsibility. The applicants appealed to the Constitutional Court.
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal upheld in part. SCA order set aside (except certain costs paragraphs of High Court order reinstated). Declaratory order granted: the first and second respondents have an obligation to ensure that reasonable measures are taken to provide for the security of rail commuters. First and second respondents ordered to pay applicants' costs in the High Court, SCA, and Constitutional Court (including informal discovery and postponements, with costs of three counsel), except costs of applications to tender further evidence. No relief granted against third and fourth respondents.
This is a landmark case establishing that organs of state providing essential public services bear positive constitutional obligations to protect fundamental rights (life, dignity, security) of service users, even where other state entities (like the police) bear primary responsibility. The judgment clarifies the interpretative approach to statutory duties in light of the Constitution, emphasizing context, accountability, and the nature of public power. It establishes the "reasonableness" standard for assessing whether organs of state have met their constitutional obligations, balancing accountability with deference to decision-makers. The case is significant for its endorsement of declaratory relief as a flexible and appropriate constitutional remedy that clarifies legal obligations while allowing the executive to determine implementation. It is a key authority on the constitutional value of accountability in public administration and the positive duties flowing from sections 7(2), 10, 11, and 12 of the Constitution. The case also addresses the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction to determine factual disputes connected to constitutional matters and reaffirms the Plascon-Evans rule in motion proceedings. It is important for transport law, administrative law, and the intersection of public and private law in South Africa.