Goelst v MEC Safety And Security and Another (2013/08028) [2014] ZAGPJHC 131 (10 June 2014)

Goelst v MEC Safety And Security and Another (2013/08028) [2014] ZAGPJHC 131 (10 June 2014)

The court found that the second defendant, Cele, was a peace officer as defined by the Criminal Procedure Act and was entitled to exercise powers of arrest. The plaintiff committed a traffic offence in Cele's presence by driving in the emergency lane and refusing to comply with a lawful order. The plaintiff's version that he was reporting a drunken driver and feared hijacking was rejected as improbable. The force used during the arrest was found to be necessary and not excessive, with any injuries largely resulting from the plaintiff's own resistance. The jurisdictional requirements for a lawful arrest were satisfied, and the discretion to arrest was properly exercised. The plaintiff...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 131
Parties
Plaintiff: Goelst, Brett; Defendant: MEC Safety and Security; Defendant: Cele, Bhekamandosi
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 June 2014
Case Number
2013/08028
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Nicholls
Legal Topics
Unlawful Arrest, Assault, Minimum Force, Peace Officer Powers, Traffic Offences
Delict Civil Procedure Unlawful Arrest Assault Minimum Force Peace Officer Powers Traffic Offences

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goelst, Brett

Plaintiff

MEC Safety and Security

Defendant

Cele, Bhekamandosi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrest and detention of the plaintiff by the second defendant was unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the force used during the arrest amounted to assault or excessive force.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the conduct of the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second defendant, Cele, was a peace officer as defined by the Criminal Procedure Act and was entitled to exercise powers of arrest. The plaintiff committed a traffic offence in Cele's presence by driving in the emergency lane and refusing to comply with a lawful order. The plaintiff's version that he was reporting a drunken driver and feared hijacking was rejected as improbable. The force used during the arrest was found to be necessary and not excessive, with any injuries largely resulting from the plaintiff's own resistance. The jurisdictional requirements for a lawful arrest were satisfied, and the discretion to arrest was properly exercised. The plaintiff...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's case is dismissed with costs.