Makawu v Minister of Safety and Security (3212/2010) [2013] ZAECGHC 103 (19 September 2013)

Makawu v Minister of Safety and Security (3212/2010) [2013] ZAECGHC 103 (19 September 2013)

The court found that the arresting officer did not have a reasonable suspicion that the plaintiff had committed a schedule 1 offence, nor did he intend to arrest the plaintiff for such an offence. The evidence showed that the plaintiff was available to the police, did not avoid them, and was not informed of the reason for his arrest. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving the lawfulness of the arrest and detention. The plaintiff was subjected to humiliating and degrading treatment, including being handcuffed in public and detained in inhumane conditions. The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence and rejected the conflicting evidence of the arresting officer. The arrest...

Citation
[2013] ZAECGHC 103
Parties
Plaintiff: Thabiso Kennedy Makawu; Defendant: The Minister of Safety and Security
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2013
Case Number
3212/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. The arrest and detention were unlawful. The defendant is ordered to pay damages.
Judges
Sandi
Legal Topics
Unlawful Arrest, Wrongful Detention, Quantum of Damages, Onus of Proof, Contumelia
Delict Civil Procedure Unlawful Arrest Wrongful Detention Quantum of Damages Onus of Proof Contumelia

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

Parties

Thabiso Kennedy Makawu

Plaintiff

The Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrest and detention of the plaintiff by the police was wrongful and unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant discharged the onus of proving the lawfulness of the arrest and detention.
  3. 3 What quantum of damages is appropriate for the plaintiff's unlawful arrest and detention.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arresting officer did not have a reasonable suspicion that the plaintiff had committed a schedule 1 offence, nor did he intend to arrest the plaintiff for such an offence. The evidence showed that the plaintiff was available to the police, did not avoid them, and was not informed of the reason for his arrest. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving the lawfulness of the arrest and detention. The plaintiff was subjected to humiliating and degrading treatment, including being handcuffed in public and detained in inhumane conditions. The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence and rejected the conflicting evidence of the arresting officer. The arrest...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. The arrest and detention were unlawful. The defendant is ordered to pay damages.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the sum of R160,000.00 together with interest at the prevailing legal rate from 14 days after judgment to the date of payment.
  • The defendant shall pay the costs of suit together with interest thereon calculated at the prevailing legal rate from 14 days after allocatur to the date of payment.