Bambela and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions (7179/2014) [2018] ZAGPPHC 518 (26 January 2018)

Bambela and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions (7179/2014) [2018] ZAGPPHC 518 (26 January 2018)

The court found that the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause and with malice in prosecuting the plaintiffs. The evidence showed that none of the witnesses could identify the plaintiffs and that DNA results failed to link them to the alleged crimes. Despite this, the defendant persisted with the prosecution and numerous postponements. The defendant's concession that it set the law in motion and that the prosecution failed, combined with the absence of any reasonable basis for the prosecution, established liability for malicious prosecution. The defendant was held liable for 100% of the plaintiffs' proven or agreed damages and ordered to pay costs.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 518
Parties
Plaintiff: Jimmy Bambela; Plaintiff: Joseph Masindi; Defendant: National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 January 2018
Case Number
7179/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum Under Rule 33(4); Judgment on Liability Only
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs on liability; defendant held liable for 100% of proven or agreed damages and costs.
Judges
S S Mphahlele
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Liability Separation, Quantum Postponement
Delict Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Liability Separation Quantum Postponement

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jimmy Bambela

Plaintiff

Joseph Masindi

Plaintiff

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum Under Rule 33(4); Judgment on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defendant act without reasonable and probable cause in prosecuting the plaintiffs?
  2. 2 Did the defendant act with malice in instituting and persisting with the prosecution?
  3. 3 Is the defendant liable for damages arising from malicious prosecution?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause and with malice in prosecuting the plaintiffs. The evidence showed that none of the witnesses could identify the plaintiffs and that DNA results failed to link them to the alleged crimes. Despite this, the defendant persisted with the prosecution and numerous postponements. The defendant's concession that it set the law in motion and that the prosecution failed, combined with the absence of any reasonable basis for the prosecution, established liability for malicious prosecution. The defendant was held liable for 100% of the plaintiffs' proven or agreed damages and ordered to pay costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs on liability; defendant held liable for 100% of proven or agreed damages and costs.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable to pay 100% of the plaintiffs' proven or agreed damages.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of suit.