Ajooda v Minister of Safety and Security (35327/2012) [2016] ZAGPJHC 255 (13 October 2016)
The court found that Sergeant Kgatle did not act with ulterior motives in arresting the plaintiff, and her conduct did not warrant personal liability for costs. The defective warrant was a matter for her employer to address. Consequently, the defendant, as the employer, is liable for the costs of the action. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] ZAGPJHC 255
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mahendra Ajooda; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 13 October 2016
- Case Number
- 35327/2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Procedure / Post Judgment Costs Determination
- Outcome
- Sergeant Kgatle is not held personally liable for costs; the defendant is ordered to pay costs on differentiated scales.
- Judges
- N. P. Mali
- Legal Topics
- Unlawful Arrest, Costs Award, Personal Liability of Officer
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mahendra Ajooda
Plaintiff
Minister of Safety and Security
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Sergeant Kgatle should be held personally liable for the costs of the action arising from the plaintiff's unlawful arrest.
- 2 What scale of costs should be awarded against the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that Sergeant Kgatle did not act with ulterior motives in arresting the plaintiff, and her conduct did not warrant personal liability for costs. The defective warrant was a matter for her employer to address. Consequently, the defendant, as the employer, is liable for the costs of the action. The court further differentiated the scale of costs, awarding party and party costs up to 25 May 2015 and attorney and client costs for the period from 26 to 29 May 2015, reflecting the conduct and circumstances surrounding the litigation.
Court Disposition
Sergeant Kgatle is not held personally liable for costs; the defendant is ordered to pay costs on differentiated scales.
Orders
- The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the action.
- Costs incurred up until 25 May 2015 are to be paid on a party and party scale.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 35327/2012
Reportable: No
Of interest to other judges: No
Revised.
In the matter between:
MAHENDRA AJOODA PLAINTIFF
and
THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
MALI J
[1] On 6 August 2015 the judgment was issued in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in respect of damages arising of the
plaintiff's unlawful arrest. The issue of costs was postponed side die. For background purposes the said judgment is attached.
[2] The arrest was affected by one Sergeant Kgatle. Paragraph 29 (5) of the abovementioned judgment reads as follows:
"Sergeant Kgatle is given 20 days from the date of service upon her of this judgment, in writing, to furnish reasons why she should not be held personally liable for the costs of the action."
[3] I only received Sergeant Kgatle's explanatory affidavit on 5 July 2016, despite the date stamp on the affidavit being 10 November 2015.
[4] After careful consideration of Sergeant Kgatle's affidavit I am persuaded that she had no ulterior motives in arresting the
plaintiff. The fact that she arrested the plaintiff with a defective warrant may be dealt with by her employer, the defendant.
[5] Having regard to the above I find that Sergeant Kgatle should not be held personally liable for the costs of action.
ORDER
[6] In the result the following order is made:
6.1. The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the action in the following manner;
6.2. Costs incurred up until the 25 May 2015 to be at party and party scale;
6.3. Costs incurred from 26 to 29 May 2015 to be at attorney and client scale.
______________________
N. P. MALI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Adv Morland
Instructed by:
Saders Attorneys
Attorneys for the defendant: Adv Zitha
Instructed by:
The State Attorney
Date of Judgment:
2016-10-13