Maharaj v Minister of Police and Others; Sikobi v Minister of Police and Others (10781/2013; 10782/2013) [2020] ZAKZDHC 21 (2 June 2020)
The court found that any claim against Mr Balraj arose when he lodged the complaint on 14 February 2013, which initiated the sequence of events leading to the applicants' arrest, detention, prosecution, conviction, and eventual acquittal. The cause of action did not arise from the appeal court's criticism of Mr...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] ZAKZDHC 21
- Parties
- Applicant: Shivram Parbhoonath Maharaj; Applicant: Solomon Elphus Sikobi; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions, KZN; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Anesh Balraj
- Court
- Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 10781/2013; 10782/2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application for Joinder
- Outcome
- Application for joinder dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- D. Pillay
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Prescription of Claims, Malicious Prosecution, Unlawful Arrest
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Shivram Parbhoonath Maharaj
Applicant
Solomon Elphus Sikobi
Applicant
Minister of Police
Respondent
Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Respondent
National Director of Public Prosecutions, KZN
Respondent
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Anesh Balraj
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Joinder
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants may join Anesh Balraj as fifth respondent to the proceedings.
- 2 Whether any claim against Mr Balraj has prescribed due to the effluxion of time.
- 3 Whether the cause of action against Mr Balraj arose from the lodging of a complaint or from the appeal court's criticism of his evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that any claim against Mr Balraj arose when he lodged the complaint on 14 February 2013, which initiated the sequence of events leading to the applicants' arrest, detention, prosecution, conviction, and eventual acquittal. The cause of action did not arise from the appeal court's criticism of Mr Balraj as a witness; the acquittal merely fortified the applicants' claim. As the claims against Mr Balraj have prescribed due to the effluxion of time, and procedural non-compliance in serving pleadings on him was present, the application for joinder must be dismissed. The applicants are ordered to pay costs jointly and severally.
Court Disposition
Application for joinder dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs to be borne jointly and severally by the applicants, the one paying the other to be absolved.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
62 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION,
DURBAN
Case number: 10781/2013
In the matter between
SHIVRAM PARBHOONATH MAHARAJ
APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
and
THE MINISTER OF POLICE
FIRST RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
SECOND RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT
THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS, KZN
THIRD RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS
FOURTH RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT
ANESH BALRAJ
PROPOSED FIFTH RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT
Case number: 10782/2013
SOLOMON ELPHUS SIKOBI
APPLICANT /PLAINTIFF
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT SECOND RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT
PROSECUTIONS, KZN
THIRD RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT
PROSECUTIONS
FOURTH RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT
ANESH BALRAJ PROPOSED FIFTH RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT
ORDER
The following order is granted:
[1] In the circumstances the application falls to be dismissed with costs to be born jointly and severally by the applicants, the one paying the other to be absolved.
JUDGMENT
D. Pillay J
[1] The applicants are Shivram Maharaj and Solomon Elphus Sikobi. The first second, third, fourth and fifth respondents are the Minister of Police, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, and the National Director of Public Prosecutions, KwaZulu-Natal.
[2] The applicants seek to join the fifth respondent Anesh Balraj as fifth respondent.
[3] Mr Balraj lodged a complaint against the plaintiffs with the South African Police Service on 14 February 2013. As a result, they were arrested on 25 February 2013 charged, prosecuted and convicted on 4 August 2015 for defeating the ends of justice and extortion. On 5 September 2017 the full bench of the KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court set aside their conviction and their sentence of three years imprisonment.
[4] The applicants failed to serve a copy of the pleadings on Mr Balraj. On its own this procedural non-compliance would not be sufficient cause for dismissing the application. The facts must be considered.
[5] On 6 March 2019 the applicants delivered this application for joinder. The action for damages arising from the applicants’ alleged unlawful arrest and detention and malicious prosecution against the first to fourth respondents was launched on 25 October 2013. Any claim the applicants have against Mr Balraj arose when he lodged a complaint against the applicants allegedly on false premises. Lodging a false complaint triggered the sequence of events that resulted in the arrest, detention, prosecution, conviction and eventual acquittal. Their cause of action arose on 14 February 2013. While Mr Balraj has a direct and substantial interest in the proceedings, and substantially the same facts give rise to the claims against the first to the fourth respondents, claims against him have prescribed with the effluxion of time. The cause of action did not
arise consequent upon the appeal court’s criticism of Mr Balraj as a witness. Their acquittal on appeal was not the cause of action. It merely fortified their claim.
[6] In the circumstances the application falls to be dismissed with costs to be born jointly and severally by the applicants, the one paying the other to be absolved.
D. Pillay J
Judge of the High Court of KwaZulu-Natal
APPEARANCES
N.B With the consent of the parties the matter was dealt with on the papers.
Date of Hearing
: 2 June 2020
Date of Judgment
: 2 June 2020
Applicants/Plaintiff Attorneys
: Viren Singh Attorneys
Ref: V Singh/ngm/M1362 & S 1347
Tel: (031) 312 8866/7
Respondent/ Defendants attorneys : State Attorney KZN
Ref: 32/2937/13/s/P20
Tel: (031) 365 2560
Counsel for the 5th Respondent/Defendant: Murray Pitman
Respondent/ Defendants attorneys : Arvina Harrichand Attorneys
Ref: AH/N41
Tel: (031) 826 1277
arvinah@gmail.com