Bhengu v The Minister of Police (42822/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 155 (13 May 2021)

Bhengu v The Minister of Police (42822/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 155 (13 May 2021)

The court found that the defendant discharged the onus of justifying the arrest of the plaintiff without a warrant under Section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The pointing out of the plaintiff by Thuliswa Mbovane at his residence constituted direct evidence and was corroborated by the plaintiff himself. Although some information provided to the arresting officer was hearsay, the critical act of identification was not. The arresting officer had reasonable suspicion that the plaintiff had committed a Schedule 1 offence, namely murder, at the time of arrest. Consequently, the subsequent detention was also lawful. The court further held that the employment of two counsel by the...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 155
Parties
Plaintiff: Zabalunge Bhengu; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 May 2021
Case Number
42822/2018
Procedural Posture
Delictual Claim / Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims for damages for unlawful arrest and unlawful detention are dismissed with costs.
Judges
G. Ally
Legal Topics
Unlawful Arrest, Unlawful Detention, Section 40 Criminal Procedure Act, Reasonable Suspicion, Costs Award
Delict Civil Procedure Criminal Law Unlawful Arrest Unlawful Detention Section 40 Criminal Procedure Act Reasonable Suspicion Costs Award

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zabalunge Bhengu

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delictual Claim / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrest of the plaintiff without a warrant was unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the subsequent detention of the plaintiff was unlawful.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant discharged the onus of justifying the arrest and detention under Section 40(1)(b) and Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant discharged the onus of justifying the arrest of the plaintiff without a warrant under Section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The pointing out of the plaintiff by Thuliswa Mbovane at his residence constituted direct evidence and was corroborated by the plaintiff himself. Although some information provided to the arresting officer was hearsay, the critical act of identification was not. The arresting officer had reasonable suspicion that the plaintiff had committed a Schedule 1 offence, namely murder, at the time of arrest. Consequently, the subsequent detention was also lawful. The court further held that the employment of two counsel by the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims for damages for unlawful arrest and unlawful detention are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claims for damages for unlawful arrest and unlawful detention are dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to the defendant, including the costs of one counsel only.