Greenberg v Du Preez and Another (23302/2002) [2013] ZAGPJHC 67 (31 March 2013)

Greenberg v Du Preez and Another (23302/2002) [2013] ZAGPJHC 67 (31 March 2013)

The court found that the arrest and detention of the plaintiff were unlawful because the jurisdictional facts required for a warrantless arrest under section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act were not present. The arrest did not occur at the scene of an incident of domestic violence, nor was there evidence that the alleged offence contained an element of violence against Mrs Greenberg. The information relied upon by the arresting officer was not corroborated by credible witnesses, and the plaintiff's account was supported by affidavit evidence from Sgt Kgomo. The court concluded that the deprivation of liberty was unjustified and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages. In determining...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 67
Parties
Plaintiff: Lionel Mervin Greenberg; Defendant: Renier Du Preez; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2013
Case Number
23302/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for damages for wrongful arrest and detention is upheld.
Judges
Meyer
Legal Topics
Wrongful Arrest, Unlawful Detention, Damages Assessment, Domestic Violence Act, Interim Protection Order
Civil Procedure Delict Wrongful Arrest Unlawful Detention Damages Assessment Domestic Violence Act Interim Protection Order

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lionel Mervin Greenberg

Plaintiff

Renier Du Preez

Defendant

Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's arrest and detention were lawful under section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act and section 40(1)(q) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the jurisdictional facts for a warrantless arrest under the Domestic Violence Act were present.
  3. 3 What quantum of damages is appropriate for wrongful arrest and deprivation of liberty.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arrest and detention of the plaintiff were unlawful because the jurisdictional facts required for a warrantless arrest under section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act were not present. The arrest did not occur at the scene of an incident of domestic violence, nor was there evidence that the alleged offence contained an element of violence against Mrs Greenberg. The information relied upon by the arresting officer was not corroborated by credible witnesses, and the plaintiff's account was supported by affidavit evidence from Sgt Kgomo. The court concluded that the deprivation of liberty was unjustified and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages. In determining...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for damages for wrongful arrest and detention is upheld.

Orders

  • The second defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of R30,000.00 in damages for unlawful arrest and deprivation of liberty.
  • The second defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs on the High Court scale as between party and party.