L.B.Z v National Director of Prosecutions (1195/2019) [2025] ZAMPMHC 23 (4 March 2025)

L.B.Z v National Director of Prosecutions (1195/2019) [2025] ZAMPMHC 23 (4 March 2025)

The court found that although the Plaintiff could not be convicted as a perpetrator of rape due to her gender, the evidence established that she facilitated and furthered the commission of the rapes by delivering minor girls to Malinga, knowing or having reason to know of the risk and subsequently failing to act when informed of the rapes. The Plaintiff's conduct fit the definition of an accomplice, and the prosecutor had reasonable and probable cause, supported by witness statements and circumstantial evidence such as receipt of money from Malinga. The prosecutor's request for additional statements demonstrated a genuine effort to clarify the Plaintiff's involvement, not malice. The...

Citation
[2025] ZAMPMHC 23
Parties
Plaintiff: L[...] B[...] Z[...]; Defendant: National Director of Prosecutions
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 March 2025
Case Number
1195/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for malicious prosecution is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Langa
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Accomplice Liability, Accessory After the Fact, Rape, Reasonable and Probable Cause
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Accomplice Liability Accessory After the Fact Rape Reasonable and Probable Cause

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L[...] B[...] Z[...]

Plaintiff

National Director of Prosecutions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecutor had reasonable and probable cause and an honest belief founded on reasonable grounds to prosecute the Plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the prosecutor acted with malice (animo injuriandi) in instituting proceedings against the Plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff, as a female, could be charged and convicted of rape as at December 2006.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the Plaintiff could not be convicted as a perpetrator of rape due to her gender, the evidence established that she facilitated and furthered the commission of the rapes by delivering minor girls to Malinga, knowing or having reason to know of the risk and subsequently failing to act when informed of the rapes. The Plaintiff's conduct fit the definition of an accomplice, and the prosecutor had reasonable and probable cause, supported by witness statements and circumstantial evidence such as receipt of money from Malinga. The prosecutor's request for additional statements demonstrated a genuine effort to clarify the Plaintiff's involvement, not malice. The...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for malicious prosecution is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs on Scale B.