<\/p>\n
The Gauteng High Court has ordered the South African Police Service (SAPS) to reverse its refusal to recognise a change in the \u201cresponsible person\u201d of a firearms dealership, while sharply criticising officers for what the judge described as obstructive and unlawful conduct.<\/p>\n
In a judgment delivered on Monday (2 February), Judge J Swanepoel said the respondents\u2019 handling of the matter was \u201castonishing\u201d and accused them of displaying \u201can astounding lack of knowledge about corporate structures\u201d.<\/p>\n
Listen\/read: Concerns over secret revival of firearms control bill<\/p>\n
He said their conduct was, in his view, contemptuous of the court.<\/p>\n
The applicant in the matter was Marksman Arms and Firearm Training CC. The respondents were the National Commissioner of Police, Brigadier PN Sikhakhane, Captain WJ Croukamp, Colonel S Mangadi, the Minister of Police and the Firearms Appeal Board.<\/p>\n
Read: A deregulation task force could set business free<\/p>\n
The case arose after Hendrik van Zyl bought the business from Isaac Nel in June 2025 and became its sole member.<\/p>\n
Van Zyl advised the police that he had been nominated as the new responsible person under the Firearms Control Act and asked that their records be updated accordingly.<\/p>\n
(The \u201cresponsible person\u201d is the individual responsible for a firearm dealer\u2019s compliance with the Firearms Control Act and who represents the business in all dealings with the police.)<\/p>\n
Enterprise paralysed\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n However, on 28 November 2025, Van Zyl was informed that he would have to apply afresh for a dealer\u2019s licence because of the change in ownership.<\/p>\n ADVERTISEMENT<\/p>\n CONTINUE READING BELOW<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The fourth respondent maintained that Van Zyl was not authorised to request a change of responsible person and insisted that a new licence application was required.<\/p>\n This refusal led the applicant to approach the court for an order compelling the police to effect the change, as well as for punitive costs.<\/p>\n In his judgment, Swanepoel found that the refusal had crippled Van Zyl\u2019s enterprise.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n He noted that \u201cthe applicant\u2019s business has been paralysed by the police\u2019s refusal to change the identity of the responsible person on the system\u201d.<\/p>\n The court reviewed and set aside the decision of the respondents not to recognise Van Zyl as the responsible person.<\/p>\n It ordered that the officers involved must, in writing, acknowledge and implement the change with immediate effect and ensure that related firearm applications are processed.<\/p>\n \u2018Astounding lack of knowledge\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n The second, third and fourth respondents were also directed to file affidavits explaining why they should not be ordered to pay the applicant\u2019s legal costs personally.<\/p>\n Swanepoel was particularly critical of the fourth respondent\u2019s affidavit, in which she argued that the request to change the responsible person should have been made by the \u201cdirectors of the business\u201d, despite it being a close corporation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u201cThese averments are repeated often in the answering affidavit and reflect an astounding lack of knowledge regarding the difference between a close corporation and a company.<\/p>\n ADVERTISEMENT:<\/p>\n CONTINUE READING BELOW<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n \u201cFurthermore, the fourth respondent bemoans the fact that the members of the closed corporation did not provide a resolution nominating Van Zyl as the responsible person. She does so when it was patently obvious that \u2026 Van Zyl was the only member,\u201d Swanepoel said.<\/p>\n The fourth respondent also persisted with the view that a change in ownership required a new dealer\u2019s licence.<\/p>\n Swanepoel rejected this, referring to the earlier Pretoria Arms case, in which the high court held that a change in ownership of a juristic person does not necessitate a fresh licence application.<\/p>\n \u2018Obstructive and contemptuous\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n In another passage in the ruling, the judge said the respondents were \u201cblatantly obstructive and contemptuous\u201d.<\/p>\n Although he considered making a personal costs order against the officials, Swanepoel ultimately refrained from doing so.<\/p>\n Instead, the first, fifth and sixth respondents were ordered to pay punitive costs on the attorney-and-client scale.<\/p>\n The judge also directed that the ruling be brought to the attention of the senior SAPS leadership.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u201cI do not know whether the Minister and National Commissioner are aware of the appalling conduct of these officers, and therefore I will direct the Registrar to bring this judgment to their attention,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Listen\/read: SA gun violence: Why current strategies are failing to reduce stats<\/p>\n Follow Moneyweb\u2019s in-depth finance and business news on WhatsApp here.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n
\n
\n