Carrim v Zogiat and Others (188/2008) [2012] ZANWHC 7 (8 March 2012)

Carrim v Zogiat and Others (188/2008) [2012] ZANWHC 7 (8 March 2012)

The court found that there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding whether the appellant actively instigated the prosecution, acted with animus iniuriandi, and whether he had reasonable and probable cause. The evidence, including the appellant’s and witness Mirza’s statements, was not conclusive as to whether the appellant wilfully made a false statement or intended to implicate the respondents maliciously. The court also found that the quantum of damages awarded could be reconsidered by another court. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted.

Citation
[2012] ZANWHC 7
Parties
Appellant: M.R. Carrim; Respondent: Z.G. Zogiat; Respondent: S.N. Mahomed; Respondent: Z. Shaikhnag
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 2012
Case Number
188/2008
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment in Favour of Respondents; Condonation for Late Filing Granted.
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Full Bench of the division; costs to be costs in the appeal.
Judges
A.M. Kgoele
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Animus Iniuriandi, Reasonable and Probable Cause, Quantum of Damages
Civil Procedure Delict Malicious Prosecution Animus Iniuriandi Reasonable and Probable Cause Quantum of Damages

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.R. Carrim

Appellant

Z.G. Zogiat

Respondent

S.N. Mahomed

Respondent

Z. Shaikhnag

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment in Favour of Respondents; Condonation for Late Filing Granted.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant instigated or instituted the criminal proceedings against the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant acted intentionally or with animus iniuriandi.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant acted without reasonable and probable cause.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding whether the appellant actively instigated the prosecution, acted with animus iniuriandi, and whether he had reasonable and probable cause. The evidence, including the appellant’s and witness Mirza’s statements, was not conclusive as to whether the appellant wilfully made a false statement or intended to implicate the respondents maliciously. The court also found that the quantum of damages awarded could be reconsidered by another court. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Full Bench of the division; costs to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for the late filing of the leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appellant is granted leave to appeal to the Full Bench of this division.