Koji v Director of Public Prosecutions (628/2018) [2024] ZANWHC 297; [2025] 1 All SA 680 (NWM) (5 December 2024)

Koji v Director of Public Prosecutions (628/2018) [2024] ZANWHC 297; [2025] 1 All SA 680 (NWM) (5 December 2024)

The court found that at the time the National Prosecuting Authority decided to prosecute Koji, there was no affidavit or evidence in the docket that could establish reasonable and probable cause. The key statements relied upon by the prosecution were either not commissioned or only commissioned after the prosecution was initiated, and thus could not have formed the basis for the decision to prosecute. The additional witness statements were also commissioned after the fact. The prosecutors could not have subjectively or objectively believed in Koji's guilt, and their conduct amounted to acting recklessly as to the wrongfulness of their actions, satisfying the requirement of dolus...

Citation
[2024] ZANWHC 297
Parties
Plaintiff: K N Koji; Defendant: Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 December 2024
Case Number
628/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Determination; Quantum Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Liability for malicious prosecution is established against the defendant; quantum postponed sine die.
Judges
A Reddy
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Reasonable and Probable Cause, Animus Iniuriandi, Dolus Eventualis
Delict Criminal Law Malicious Prosecution Reasonable and Probable Cause Animus Iniuriandi Dolus Eventualis

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K N Koji

Plaintiff

Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Determination; Quantum Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the National Prosecuting Authority acted without reasonable and probable cause in prosecuting Koji.
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution was actuated by malice (animus iniuriandi).
  3. 3 Whether Koji has proven the jurisdictional requirements for malicious prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that at the time the National Prosecuting Authority decided to prosecute Koji, there was no affidavit or evidence in the docket that could establish reasonable and probable cause. The key statements relied upon by the prosecution were either not commissioned or only commissioned after the prosecution was initiated, and thus could not have formed the basis for the decision to prosecute. The additional witness statements were also commissioned after the fact. The prosecutors could not have subjectively or objectively believed in Koji's guilt, and their conduct amounted to acting recklessly as to the wrongfulness of their actions, satisfying the requirement of dolus...

Court Disposition

Liability for malicious prosecution is established against the defendant; quantum postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages to be proven during the quantum stage of the trial in respect of the plaintiff’s claim for malicious prosecution.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the suit on the High Court party-and-party scale, including the costs of counsel on Scale B.