Hadebe and Another v The Minister of Police and Another (12697/2019; 12698/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 455 (7 July 2022)

Hadebe and Another v The Minister of Police and Another (12697/2019; 12698/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 455 (7 July 2022)

The court found that the arresting officers acted lawfully, having been informed by the complainant of an attempted armed robbery and having found a firearm in the possession of the first plaintiff. The alleged errors raised by the plaintiffs, including the acceptance of Sergeant Phooko's evidence, consideration of withdrawn assault claims, exclusion of Warrant Officer Marakalala's evidence, reliance on hearsay, and reference to a single suspect, were either immaterial or did not affect the outcome. The court held that credibility and probabilities were properly assessed, and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 455
Parties
Plaintiff: Nkosinathi Mandlakayise Hadebe; Plaintiff: Mkhumbuleni Mkhize; Defendant: The Minister of Police; Defendant: Members of South African Police Services
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 July 2022
Case Number
12697/2019; 12698/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Action at Trial
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Du Plessis
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Unlawful Arrest, Unlawful Detention, Damages, Credibility of Witnesses
Civil Procedure Delict Leave to Appeal Unlawful Arrest Unlawful Detention Damages Credibility of Witnesses

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nkosinathi Mandlakayise Hadebe

Plaintiff

Mkhumbuleni Mkhize

Plaintiff

The Minister of Police

Defendant

Members of South African Police Services

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Action at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have shown reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal against the dismissal of their claims for unlawful arrest and detention.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in accepting the evidence of the arresting officers and rejecting the plaintiffs' version.
  3. 3 Whether the court improperly considered or excluded certain evidence, including hearsay and credibility findings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arresting officers acted lawfully, having been informed by the complainant of an attempted armed robbery and having found a firearm in the possession of the first plaintiff. The alleged errors raised by the plaintiffs, including the acceptance of Sergeant Phooko's evidence, consideration of withdrawn assault claims, exclusion of Warrant Officer Marakalala's evidence, reliance on hearsay, and reference to a single suspect, were either immaterial or did not affect the outcome. The court held that credibility and probabilities were properly assessed, and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The plaintiffs are, jointly and severally, ordered to pay the first defendant's costs.