The consequences of lawlessness: violence erupts at Engen petrol station

THE recent incident that occurred at the Engen petrol station in KwaDukuza (Stanger) can only be described as a barbaric act of senseless violence. The attention drawn on social media and news platforms is more sensational than highlighting the seriousness of the incident.

It demonstrates an absolute disregard for the rule of law. In fact, this single incident violates so many rights that the South African Constitution protects (dignity, freedom, intimidation, safety and life) but there are no repercussions as none of the affected parties believe that the incident should be reported to the police, or that this matter should be investigated.

The police will not intervene without a complainant preferring a charge. So instead of a lesson being learnt, the bottom line that the community can take from this is to do as you please, and if a financial arrangement is reached between parties, then let’s leave the law out of this. If there are no consequences, then one cannot expect wrongdoing to be curbed.

After an alleged altercation, the driver of the van decided that he would not stick around and wait for what was going to be a visit from the police, and that he would leave the garage premises.

The driver of the GTI wanted the police to intervene. So he thought that if used his car as a shield and he blocked the path of the driver of the van, it would be stuck with nowhere to go. How wrong was he, as the owner of the van reverse-bulldozed his way out, violently and with unrestrained speed, and force-rammed into the GTI.

This was Fast and Furious being enacted in Stanger with the lead actors creating real-life dangerous situation in a highly-flammable petrol station.

Stanger Manor, known for its high academic achievers on the KwaZulu-Natal North Coast, shocked the province with this show of brainless moronic behaviour. The questions that the public are asking are if the law will intervene. In this regard what, if any, is the duty of the petrol station? Does a criminal offence arise as a result of this incident? Can the parties be sued, and can the petrol station face liability?

This petrol station carries on trade under Engen’s brand, and like all private businesses, it must conduct itself lawfully. While our common law does not impose a legal duty on every person/business to report every incident or criminal activity, there is a statutory duty to report serious commercial crime and corruption.

This also extends to sexual offences and crimes involving minors. What this means is that despite the altercation at the garage, the violent collision on the garage premises, the fact that petrol pumps with fuel in them could have been collided into and exploded, that the convenience store and the forecourt had patrons about, there is no real obligation on the garage to report the incident.

Effectively, the garage can turn a blind eye, which it seems it did.

You see, if there is no complainant, then there is no police investigation. The garage staff would be witnesses in any criminal investigation if this matter were prosecuted. Evidence such as CCTV footage and witness statements would be easily obtained so as to assist the police in finalising its investigation, and referring the matter to the prosecuting authorities for charges to be brought against the perpetrators’. But if the petrol station suffered no harm, then it’s easy to let sleeping dogs lie. Perhaps there would have had to be a loss of life for there to be some intervention.

But in this case, the owner of the GTI suffered the loss and damage, and the onus is then on him to act. Let’s not forget that the driver of the van could counter-charge based on various defences such as intimidation, assault and crimen injuria (injury to one’s dignity). South African law extends rights to persons who suffer harm to sue for damages, over and above the institution of criminal proceedings. To succeed, the victim/plaintiff must prove wrongful conduct, which causes damages either intentionally or negligently resulting in loss.

Because the incident was between private individuals, the petrol station cannot be held liable just because the incident took place on its premises. If its staff or security personnel incited or participated in the unlawful acts, then it can be found to have contributed to the unlawful conduct and held liable.

The two individuals concerned have indicated to the POST that they do not want to deal with reporting the incident as they have come to an amicable settlement. This can only mean that one person intends to pay the other, and in return the “deal” is that there should be no criminal charges. This is their right, but to not report an incident just so as to claim a financial benefit is in itself a crime, referred to as compounding.

It is my view that the owner of the garage could have instituted criminal charges against one or both of the perpetrators. This was violence on their personal premises, which also becomes a public space for other patrons. Violence in public spaces carries charges of common assault, assault to cause grievous bodily harm, and even attempted murder. Then there is public violence charges where it involves people causing a disturbance in a particular public space. Both of these scenarios carry imprisonment if perpetrators are prosecuted successfully.

Why has the service station not proceeded with charges? Is it inconvenient? Or maybe not their business, or is the business of the garage at risk if charges are opened. There are no consequences, and life goes on as normal. People violate rules all the time and they get away with it because nobody cares. It is only when you are personally affected or your family affected where money cannot compensate the loss, that you realise justice needs to be done. Many people believe that they are above the law. It is a norm to disregard rules.

Perhaps the GTI owner will be or has been compensated financially for the damages, and this means more than the unlawful act that was committed in the first place. But what happens to other people when these incidents occur. This incident was an exhibition of brute force, without any regard for any person, child, pet or anyone. If a perpetrator gets away without any accountability, this leads to lawlessness. How can this ever be right in a civilised community.

I recently had my baby pet Yorkie run over on Christmas Day by a driver in the complex I live in. It happened to be the tenant of an owner of a unit in the complex. The driver was speeding, the driver went over my boy, crushing his spine. He succumbed to his injuries, while the driver ran away, and hid until we were at the hospital. The driver only revealed himself after footage was found.

What did the estate do … imposed a R1,000 fine to the owner of the unit. The estate benefited from the paltry fine imposed. The estate has a duty to investigate and charge the driver, but it did nothing, thus encouraging the reckless behaviour in a controlled environment. Perhaps when a young child is killed, something may happen, but this is unacceptable behaviour.

We have to stand up and ensure that justice is seen to be done. It’s a hard job and its painful, but it’s the right thing to do. Like with my pet, with this incident too, it's done and dusted, and when the crime gets bigger, we ask ourselves why.

As long as the garage serves the community, it has a moral duty to look after the people that it services. This would include the duty to report incidents such as this and to show a firm hand that it will not tolerate unlawful behaviour.

South Africans complain about the high levels of crime, violence, rape and corruption; and the only way to curb this is to do something about it.

Shamla Pather is director at Shamla Pather Attorneys Inc. She has been in practice for over 26 years and a member of several local and international organisations.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media. 

POST