Minister of Safety and Security v Pavier (37286/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 727 (15 November 2017)

Minister of Safety and Security v Pavier (37286/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 727 (15 November 2017)

Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal was granted as the applicant provided a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court found that the applicant bore the duty to begin and adduce evidence, given the chronology of events and the convenience of dealing with evidence as the incident unfolded. The arrest of the respondent was found to be unlawful because the Second Hand Goods Act 23 of 1955 did not authorize warrantless arrest for its contravention, and section 40(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act only applies where the underlying legislation permits arrest. The respondent's oral evidence regarding her arrest, detention, and assault was...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 727
Parties
Applicant: Minister of Safety and Security; Respondent: Pavier Johanna
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 November 2017
Case Number
37286/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation for Late Filing
Outcome
Leave to appeal to the full bench of the division is granted. The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Judges
Nkosi
Legal Topics
Unlawful Arrest, Second Hand Goods Act, Warrantless Arrest, Onus of Proof, Condonation, Quantum of Damages
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Unlawful Arrest Second Hand Goods Act Warrantless Arrest Onus of Proof Condonation Quantum of Damages

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Safety and Security

Applicant

Pavier Johanna

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation for Late Filing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant bore the duty to begin and adduce evidence in the trial.
  3. 3 Whether the arrest of the respondent without a warrant under the Second Hand Goods Act 23 of 1955 read with section 40(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 was lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal was granted as the applicant provided a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court found that the applicant bore the duty to begin and adduce evidence, given the chronology of events and the convenience of dealing with evidence as the incident unfolded. The arrest of the respondent was found to be unlawful because the Second Hand Goods Act 23 of 1955 did not authorize warrantless arrest for its contravention, and section 40(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act only applies where the underlying legislation permits arrest. The respondent's oral evidence regarding her arrest, detention, and assault was...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal to the full bench of the division is granted. The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the full bench of this division is granted.
  • The respondent is to pay the costs of the application.