Germishuys and Another v Masilela (A307/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 772 (15 August 2020)

Germishuys and Another v Masilela (A307/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 772 (15 August 2020)

The appeal was upheld because the respondent failed to prove that the appellants acted without reasonable and probable cause or with malice in instituting criminal proceedings. The Magistrate did not properly apply the technique for resolving mutually destructive versions of evidence, nor did he make credibility findings or test the probabilities. The absence of the CCTV footage in court did not justify the assumption that it did not exist or that the appellants acted wrongfully. On a balance of probabilities, the respondent did not discharge the onus required for malicious prosecution. The original order granting damages to the respondent was set aside and substituted with a dismissal of...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 772
Parties
Appellant: Hardy Germishuys; Appellant: G4S Security Solutions (SA) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Frans Mafa Masilela
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 August 2020
Case Number
A307/19
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Magistrate's Judgment and Order
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the Magistrate's court is set aside and substituted with a dismissal of the respondent's claim with costs.
Judges
Mokose, Mathunzi
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Animus Injuriandi, Onus of Proof, Credibility Assessment
Delict Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Animus Injuriandi Onus of Proof Credibility Assessment

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

Hardy Germishuys

Appellant

G4S Security Solutions (SA) (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Frans Mafa Masilela

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Magistrate's Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants acted without reasonable and probable cause in instituting criminal proceedings against the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants acted with malice (animus injuriandi) in the prosecution of the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the Magistrate correctly applied the technique for resolving mutually destructive versions of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld because the respondent failed to prove that the appellants acted without reasonable and probable cause or with malice in instituting criminal proceedings. The Magistrate did not properly apply the technique for resolving mutually destructive versions of evidence, nor did he make credibility findings or test the probabilities. The absence of the CCTV footage in court did not justify the assumption that it did not exist or that the appellants acted wrongfully. On a balance of probabilities, the respondent did not discharge the onus required for malicious prosecution. The original order granting damages to the respondent was set aside and substituted with a dismissal of...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the Magistrate's court is set aside and substituted with a dismissal of the respondent's claim with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is substituted with: 'The matter is dismissed with costs.'