Augustine v Minister of Safety and Security (3771/2007) [2018] ZAKZDHC 20 (29 May 2018)

Augustine v Minister of Safety and Security (3771/2007) [2018] ZAKZDHC 20 (29 May 2018)

The court held that prescription did not begin to run from the date of arrest and detention, as the plaintiff's claim was based on a continuing wrong encompassing arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution. The plaintiff did not have access to all material facts while charges were pending and investigations ongoing. Prescription only commenced upon the final withdrawal of charges on 26 September 2006, when the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the complete cause of action. The claim was instituted within three years of this date, and therefore, the special plea of prescription fails. The court distinguished the facts from Mtokonya v Minister of Police, noting that the plaintiff's...

Citation
[2018] ZAKZDHC 20
Parties
Plaintiff: Julian Claude Augustine; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2018
Case Number
3771/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Determined Before Merits and Quantum
Outcome
Special plea of prescription dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mbatha
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Running of Prescription, Continuing Wrong, Malicious Prosecution, Arrest and Detention
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Running of Prescription Continuing Wrong Malicious Prosecution Arrest and Detention

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julian Claude Augustine

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription Determined Before Merits and Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 When does prescription begin to run in cases involving arrest, detention, and subsequent prosecution?
  3. 3 Is the plaintiff's claim based on a continuing wrong or discrete acts?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that prescription did not begin to run from the date of arrest and detention, as the plaintiff's claim was based on a continuing wrong encompassing arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution. The plaintiff did not have access to all material facts while charges were pending and investigations ongoing. Prescription only commenced upon the final withdrawal of charges on 26 September 2006, when the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the complete cause of action. The claim was instituted within three years of this date, and therefore, the special plea of prescription fails. The court distinguished the facts from Mtokonya v Minister of Police, noting that the plaintiff's...

Court Disposition

Special plea of prescription dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The special plea of prescription is dismissed with costs.