Lincoln v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another (17967/2012) [2017] ZAWCHC 108 (22 September 2017)

Lincoln v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another (17967/2012) [2017] ZAWCHC 108 (22 September 2017)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving that SAPS members acted with malice and without reasonable and probable cause in instigating his prosecution. The evidence showed that the investigation was prompted by legitimate concerns about irregularities within PITU, and was conducted under the supervision of the prosecuting authority. The dockets and evidence available to the investigators provided reasonable and probable cause for prosecution. Witnesses were pressured only to tell the truth, not to fabricate evidence. The plaintiff's conspiracy theory was unsupported by cogent evidence, and his selective reliance on portions of the regional court record and...

Citation
[2017] ZAWCHC 108
Parties
Plaintiff: André Edward Lincoln; Defendant: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2017
Case Number
17967/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment After Trial on Merits
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against the second defendant is dismissed.
Judges
J Cloete
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Animus Injuriandi, Reasonable and Probable Cause, Onus of Proof, Section 204 Witnesses
Delict Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Animus Injuriandi Reasonable and Probable Cause Onus of Proof Section 204 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

André Edward Lincoln

Plaintiff

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Defendant

Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment After Trial on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did SAPS members instigate the criminal prosecution against the plaintiff with malice?
  2. 2 Was the prosecution initiated without reasonable and probable cause?
  3. 3 Did the plaintiff discharge the onus of proving malicious prosecution by SAPS members?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving that SAPS members acted with malice and without reasonable and probable cause in instigating his prosecution. The evidence showed that the investigation was prompted by legitimate concerns about irregularities within PITU, and was conducted under the supervision of the prosecuting authority. The dockets and evidence available to the investigators provided reasonable and probable cause for prosecution. Witnesses were pressured only to tell the truth, not to fabricate evidence. The plaintiff's conspiracy theory was unsupported by cogent evidence, and his selective reliance on portions of the regional court record and...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against the second defendant is dismissed.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim against the second defendant is dismissed.
  • The second defendant shall pay the costs occasioned by its special plea and the withdrawal thereof, as well as the application for absolution from the instance at the close of the plaintiff's case, including the costs of two counsel where employed.