Mayongo and Others v Minister of Police (3665/18) [2021] ZAECGHC 88 (5 October 2021)

Mayongo and Others v Minister of Police (3665/18) [2021] ZAECGHC 88 (5 October 2021)

The court found that the causes of action for unlawful arrest arose on the dates the plaintiffs were arrested, and for unlawful detention, on the date of release. Summons was issued more than three years after these dates, exceeding the prescription period set by section 11(d) of the Prescription Act. The plaintiffs had all facts necessary to institute their claims at the time of arrest and release, and there was no contention that they lacked knowledge of the identity of the wrongdoer or the facts giving rise to the claim. Therefore, the claims for damages for unlawful arrest and detention were extinguished by prescription.

Citation
[2021] ZAECGHC 88
Parties
Plaintiff: Ayanda Mayongo; Plaintiff: Vuyisa Gova; Plaintiff: Luvuyo Thisla; Defendant: Minister of Police; Defendant: National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 October 2021
Case Number
3665/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea (prescription) Decided on Stated Case
Outcome
Special plea of prescription upheld with costs; plaintiffs' claims for damages for unlawful arrest and detention are extinguished.
Judges
R Krüger
Legal Topics
Prescription Act Section 11d, Unlawful Arrest, Unlawful Detention, Malicious Prosecution
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Section 11d Unlawful Arrest Unlawful Detention Malicious Prosecution

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ayanda Mayongo

Plaintiff

Vuyisa Gova

Plaintiff

Luvuyo Thisla

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea (prescription) Decided on Stated Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' claims for damages arising from alleged wrongful arrest and detention have been extinguished by prescription under section 11(d) of the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 When did the causes of action for unlawful arrest and detention become due for each plaintiff?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the causes of action for unlawful arrest arose on the dates the plaintiffs were arrested, and for unlawful detention, on the date of release. Summons was issued more than three years after these dates, exceeding the prescription period set by section 11(d) of the Prescription Act. The plaintiffs had all facts necessary to institute their claims at the time of arrest and release, and there was no contention that they lacked knowledge of the identity of the wrongdoer or the facts giving rise to the claim. Therefore, the claims for damages for unlawful arrest and detention were extinguished by prescription.

Court Disposition

Special plea of prescription upheld with costs; plaintiffs' claims for damages for unlawful arrest and detention are extinguished.

Orders

  • The first defendant's special plea of prescription is upheld with costs.