Funani v National Director of Public Prosecution (1296/2016) [2019] ZAECMHC 71 (5 November 2019)

Funani v National Director of Public Prosecution (1296/2016) [2019] ZAECMHC 71 (5 November 2019)

The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving that the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause and with malice in instituting criminal proceedings. While the defendant conceded that it instigated the proceedings and that they terminated in the plaintiff's favour, the plaintiff did not provide evidence regarding the information available to the defendant at the time of prosecution or the defendant's subjective belief in the plaintiff's guilt. The plaintiff's reliance on acquittal as proof of malicious prosecution was rejected, as acquittal alone does not establish absence of reasonable and probable cause or malice. The requirements for malicious prosecution are...

Citation
[2019] ZAECMHC 71
Parties
Plaintiff: Siphelo Funani; Defendant: National Director of Public Prosecution
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 November 2019
Case Number
1296/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Merits and Quantum
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Zono
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Animus Iniuriandi, Reasonable and Probable Cause, Onus of Proof
Delict Malicious Prosecution Animus Iniuriandi Reasonable and Probable Cause Onus of Proof

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siphelo Funani

Plaintiff

National Director of Public Prosecution

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Merits and Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause in instituting criminal proceedings against the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was actuated by malice or improper motive in prosecuting the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus to prove all elements of malicious prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving that the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause and with malice in instituting criminal proceedings. While the defendant conceded that it instigated the proceedings and that they terminated in the plaintiff's favour, the plaintiff did not provide evidence regarding the information available to the defendant at the time of prosecution or the defendant's subjective belief in the plaintiff's guilt. The plaintiff's reliance on acquittal as proof of malicious prosecution was rejected, as acquittal alone does not establish absence of reasonable and probable cause or malice. The requirements for malicious prosecution are...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.