Kiviet v M and Others (1361/2012) [2017] ZAGPJHC 368 (8 September 2017)

Kiviet v M and Others (1361/2012) [2017] ZAGPJHC 368 (8 September 2017)

The court found that the plaintiff's arrest was not unlawful. The arresting officer had reasonable suspicion based on the complainant and her mother pointing out the plaintiff as the perpetrator, and the circumstances at the scene justified the arrest under section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 368
Parties
Plaintiff: Joseph Kiviet; Defendant: Constance M.; Defendant: Mongezi M.; Defendant: Minister of Police; Defendant: National Prosecuting Authority
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2017
Case Number
1361/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims for unlawful arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution are dismissed with costs.
Judges
FHD Van Oosten
Legal Topics
Unlawful Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, Reasonable Suspicion, Animus Injuriandi, Damages, Criminal Procedure Act
Delict Criminal Law Civil Procedure Unlawful Arrest Malicious Prosecution Reasonable Suspicion Animus Injuriandi Damages +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Kiviet

Plaintiff

Constance M.

Defendant

Mongezi M.

Defendant

Minister of Police

Defendant

National Prosecuting Authority

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's arrest and detention were unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution of the plaintiff was malicious and without reasonable and probable cause.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for unlawful arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's arrest was not unlawful. The arresting officer had reasonable suspicion based on the complainant and her mother pointing out the plaintiff as the perpetrator, and the circumstances at the scene justified the arrest under section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The continued detention was determined by the court, and the investigating officer had sufficient information to warrant further investigation and prosecution. Regarding malicious prosecution, the court held that the prosecutor had a genuine belief, founded on reasonable grounds, that the plaintiff was guilty, and there was no evidence of malice or animus injuriandi. The acquittal...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims for unlawful arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
  • The plaintiff shall pay the costs of the action.