C v C and Others (205/2019) [2021] ZASCA 12 (3 February 2021)

C v C and Others (205/2019) [2021] ZASCA 12 (3 February 2021)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the first respondent's allegations against the appellant were false and that she failed to rebut the inference of animus iniuriandi and absence of reasonable and probable cause, as she did not testify and no admissible evidence established her state of mind. The expert evidence did not provide a factual link between her PTSD and a mistaken belief in the appellant's guilt. The admission of the A1 statement as hearsay was erroneous and prejudicial, as the requirements of section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act were not properly considered. The Minister was held liable for the appellant's detention after his alibi was confirmed, as there...

Citation
[2021] ZASCA 12
Parties
Appellant: G[…] C[…]; Respondent: J[….] C[…] (born P[…]); Respondent: Minister of Safety and Security; Respondent: National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2021
Case Number
205/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town
Judges
Cachalia, Van der Merwe, Schippers, Dlodlo, Nicholls
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Defamation, Unlawful Arrest and Detention, Animus Iniuriandi, Reasonable and Probable Cause, Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence
Delict Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Defamation Unlawful Arrest and Detention Animus Iniuriandi Reasonable and Probable Cause Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G[…] C[…]

Appellant

J[….] C[…] (born P[…])

Respondent

Minister of Safety and Security

Respondent

National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent is liable for malicious prosecution and defamation arising from false allegations against the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the Minister of Safety and Security is liable for unlawful arrest and detention of the appellant.
  3. 3 Whether the National Prosecuting Authority is liable for wrongful prosecution and opposition to bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the first respondent's allegations against the appellant were false and that she failed to rebut the inference of animus iniuriandi and absence of reasonable and probable cause, as she did not testify and no admissible evidence established her state of mind. The expert evidence did not provide a factual link between her PTSD and a mistaken belief in the appellant's guilt. The admission of the A1 statement as hearsay was erroneous and prejudicial, as the requirements of section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act were not properly considered. The Minister was held liable for the appellant's detention after his alibi was confirmed, as there...