Malebe-Themba and Another v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (58693/12) [2021] ZAGPPHC 287; 2021 (2) SACR 233 (GP) (10 May 2021)

Malebe-Themba and Another v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (58693/12) [2021] ZAGPPHC 287; 2021 (2) SACR 233 (GP) (10 May 2021)

The court found that the defendants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the arrest of the plaintiffs was justified. The warrants of arrest were executed two years after the alleged incident, despite the plaintiffs being known to the police and still employed by SAPS. No evidence was presented to show why their attendance at court could not have been secured by summons. The investigation was incomplete and failed to consider relevant internal findings and witness statements. The prosecution was instigated without reasonable and probable cause and was motivated by malice. The plaintiffs were acquitted, and the entire experience was humiliating and traumatic. The court...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 287
Parties
Plaintiff: Sandra Malebe-Themba; Plaintiff: Daphne Moorghia-Pillay; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security; Defendant: Balakrishna Naidu; Defendant: Lieutenant-General Kruse
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 May 2021
Case Number
58693/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment in favour of the plaintiffs; damages and costs awarded.
Judges
Collis
Legal Topics
Unlawful Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, Quantum of Damages, Onus of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Unlawful Arrest Malicious Prosecution Quantum of Damages Onus of Proof

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

Parties

Sandra Malebe-Themba

Plaintiff

Daphne Moorghia-Pillay

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Balakrishna Naidu

Defendant

Lieutenant-General Kruse

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' arrest was lawful or unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the police were guilty of malicious prosecution of the plaintiffs.
  3. 3 If liability is established, what is the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the arrest of the plaintiffs was justified. The warrants of arrest were executed two years after the alleged incident, despite the plaintiffs being known to the police and still employed by SAPS. No evidence was presented to show why their attendance at court could not have been secured by summons. The investigation was incomplete and failed to consider relevant internal findings and witness statements. The prosecution was instigated without reasonable and probable cause and was motivated by malice. The plaintiffs were acquitted, and the entire experience was humiliating and traumatic. The court...

Court Disposition

Judgment in favour of the plaintiffs; damages and costs awarded.

Orders

  • The first, second and third defendants are ordered to pay the first plaintiff jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, an amount of R169,850.00 together with interest at the prescribed rate from 10 May 2021 to date of payment.
  • The first, second and third defendants are ordered to pay the second plaintiff jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, an amount of R172,100.00 together with interest at the prescribed rate from 10 May 2021 to date of final payment.