Mofokeng v Minister of Police (2017/22851) [2019] ZAGPPHC 79 (19 March 2019)

Mofokeng v Minister of Police (2017/22851) [2019] ZAGPPHC 79 (19 March 2019)

The court found that the defendant's proposed amended plea sets out the material facts upon which the defence is based, specifically that the arresting officer reasonably suspected the plaintiff of having committed schedule 1 offences under the Criminal Procedure Act. The plea contains admissions regarding the circumstances of arrest and detention and pleads legal justification under section 40(1)(b). The court distinguished the Windvogel case, noting that in this matter, the defendant pleaded the factual basis for the arrest, unlike in Windvogel where only legal conclusions were pleaded. The court held that the amended plea complies with Uniform Rule 18(4) and (5), provides sufficient...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 79
Parties
Plaintiff: Tebogo Mofokeng; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2019
Case Number
2017/22851
Procedural Posture
Leave to Amend / Application for Leave to Amend Defendant's Plea Prior to Trial
Outcome
Leave to amend the defendant's plea is granted. No order as to costs.
Judges
Adams
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements, Unlawful Arrest, Damages for Unlawful Detention, Excipient Pleading, Uniform Rule 18, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Delict Pleading Requirements Unlawful Arrest Damages for Unlawful Detention Excipient Pleading Uniform Rule 18 Amendment of Pleadings

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

Tebogo Mofokeng

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Amend / Application for Leave to Amend Defendant's Plea Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's proposed amended plea complies with Uniform Rule 18(4) and (5).
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment would render the plea excipiable for failing to disclose a defence.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's plea sets out material facts with sufficient particularity to enable the plaintiff to reply.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's proposed amended plea sets out the material facts upon which the defence is based, specifically that the arresting officer reasonably suspected the plaintiff of having committed schedule 1 offences under the Criminal Procedure Act. The plea contains admissions regarding the circumstances of arrest and detention and pleads legal justification under section 40(1)(b). The court distinguished the Windvogel case, noting that in this matter, the defendant pleaded the factual basis for the arrest, unlike in Windvogel where only legal conclusions were pleaded. The court held that the amended plea complies with Uniform Rule 18(4) and (5), provides sufficient...

Court Disposition

Leave to amend the defendant's plea is granted. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The defendant is granted leave to amend his plea as per his notice of intention to amend in terms of rule 28 dated 12 October 2017.
  • There shall be no order as to cost relative to this application for leave to amend.