Maphoto and Others v Minister of Police and Another (A3109/17) [2018] ZAGPJHC 442 (20 June 2018)

Maphoto and Others v Minister of Police and Another (A3109/17) [2018] ZAGPJHC 442 (20 June 2018)

The court found that the arrest and detention of the appellants were unlawful. The police failed to justify the arrest, as the arresting officer did not form a reasonable suspicion and did not conduct proper investigations. The appellants were not obliged to prove their lawful occupation to the police. The period of detention at Hillbrow police station was unjustified, and the first respondent is liable for damages for this period. Regarding malicious prosecution, the court held that the prosecution was not malicious, as the prosecutor acted on probable and reasonable cause and there was no evidence of malice or violation of dignity. The defect in the rescission order was rectified, and...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 442
Parties
Appellant: Simon Mmaphuti Maphoto; Appellant: Mapetu Philemon Makweng; Appellant: Mlungisi Vincent Mngadi; Appellant: Busisiwe Gladness Zikalala; Appellant: Fikile Constance Mbongwe; Appellant: Allocious Olebogeng Ntuli; Appellant: Phadi Shaun Lencwe; Appellant: Ben Buoang Ntsholane; Appellant: Nomzamo Cynthia Nteth; Appellant: Vusumuzi Sydney Kunene; Appellant: Mlungisi Ntetho; Appellant: Sipho Alfred Shozi; Appellant: Hlabekile Mahlangu; Appellant: Masego Shadrack Megalanyane; Appellant: Thobile Cynthia Moloi; Appellant: Keitumetse Harriette Monchusi; Appellant: Mbali Patience Mchunu; Appellant: Weziwe Edith Magwanya; Appellant: Buyelwajini Fikile Ndlovu; Appellant: Lesphoro Ernest Makweng; Appellant: Kholiswa Zimbi; Appellant: Khazamula Jeffrey Mashali; Appellant: Phyllis Hleziwe Nxumalo; Appellant: Kagiso Jafter Matlhare; Appellant: Morakane Mary Mosaka; Appellant: Hlengani Daniel Maluleke; Appellant: Maropeng Emmanuel Maphoto; Appellant: Joseph Mngomezulu; Appellant: Khazamula Reckson Maluleke; Appellant: Mboniseni Lushozi; Appellant: James Mefolo; Appellant: Bongekile Hlengiwe Zulu; Appellant: Trinity Baleseng Megalenyane; Appellant: Sakhile Daniel Zwane; Appellant: Slindile Piyose; Appellant: Khulani Ndlovu; Appellant: Sfiso Ngubane; Appellant: Celsa Vicente Fondo; Appellant: Johannes Mehlape; Appellant: Daza Lushozi; Appellant: Florence Mthimkhulu; Appellant: Agostinho Antonio Chale; Appellant: Matlou Maphoto; Appellant: Xolisile Winlove Mbonani; Appellant: Deliwe Nyandu; Appellant: Thembisile Mtungwa; Respondent: The Minister of Police; Respondent: The National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2018
Case Number
A3109/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld in respect of unlawful arrest and detention; dismissed in respect of malicious prosecution.
Judges
Malebo Habedi, Ingrid Opperman
Legal Topics
Unlawful Arrest, Unlawful Detention, Malicious Prosecution, Trespass Act, Eviction Orders, Quantum of Damages
Civil Procedure Delict Land and Property Unlawful Arrest Unlawful Detention Malicious Prosecution Trespass Act Eviction Orders +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Mmaphuti Maphoto

Appellant

Mapetu Philemon Makweng

Appellant

Mlungisi Vincent Mngadi

Appellant

Busisiwe Gladness Zikalala

Appellant

Fikile Constance Mbongwe

Appellant

Allocious Olebogeng Ntuli

Appellant

Phadi Shaun Lencwe

Appellant

Ben Buoang Ntsholane

Appellant

Nomzamo Cynthia Nteth

Appellant

Vusumuzi Sydney Kunene

Appellant

Mlungisi Ntetho

Appellant

Sipho Alfred Shozi

Appellant

Hlabekile Mahlangu

Appellant

Masego Shadrack Megalanyane

Appellant

Thobile Cynthia Moloi

Appellant

Keitumetse Harriette Monchusi

Appellant

Mbali Patience Mchunu

Appellant

Weziwe Edith Magwanya

Appellant

Buyelwajini Fikile Ndlovu

Appellant

Lesphoro Ernest Makweng

Appellant

Kholiswa Zimbi

Appellant

Khazamula Jeffrey Mashali

Appellant

Phyllis Hleziwe Nxumalo

Appellant

Kagiso Jafter Matlhare

Appellant

Morakane Mary Mosaka

Appellant

Hlengani Daniel Maluleke

Appellant

Maropeng Emmanuel Maphoto

Appellant

Joseph Mngomezulu

Appellant

Khazamula Reckson Maluleke

Appellant

Mboniseni Lushozi

Appellant

James Mefolo

Appellant

Bongekile Hlengiwe Zulu

Appellant

Trinity Baleseng Megalenyane

Appellant

Sakhile Daniel Zwane

Appellant

Slindile Piyose

Appellant

Khulani Ndlovu

Appellant

Sfiso Ngubane

Appellant

Celsa Vicente Fondo

Appellant

Johannes Mehlape

Appellant

Daza Lushozi

Appellant

Florence Mthimkhulu

Appellant

Agostinho Antonio Chale

Appellant

Matlou Maphoto

Appellant

Xolisile Winlove Mbonani

Appellant

Deliwe Nyandu

Appellant

Thembisile Mtungwa

Appellant

The Minister of Police

Respondent

The National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrest and detention of the appellants was lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution of the appellants was malicious.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are liable for damages arising from unlawful arrest and detention.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arrest and detention of the appellants were unlawful. The police failed to justify the arrest, as the arresting officer did not form a reasonable suspicion and did not conduct proper investigations. The appellants were not obliged to prove their lawful occupation to the police. The period of detention at Hillbrow police station was unjustified, and the first respondent is liable for damages for this period. Regarding malicious prosecution, the court held that the prosecution was not malicious, as the prosecutor acted on probable and reasonable cause and there was no evidence of malice or violation of dignity. The defect in the rescission order was rectified, and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in respect of unlawful arrest and detention; dismissed in respect of malicious prosecution.

Orders

  • Claim A: The first respondent is liable for 100% of any damages which the plaintiffs may prove.
  • The first respondent is to pay the costs of suit for Claim A.