Morrison v Minister of Safety & Security (80/2017) [2021] ZAECMHC 2 (12 January 2021)

Morrison v Minister of Safety & Security (80/2017) [2021] ZAECMHC 2 (12 January 2021)

The plaintiffs were arrested and detained by SAPS members without a warrant and without being informed of any offence. The defendant, who bore the onus to justify the arrest, failed to lead any evidence to show that the arrest was lawful or that the requirements of section 40(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act were met. The plaintiffs' evidence was accepted as truthful, consistent, and honest. The court found that the arrest and detention were arbitrary and unjustified, violating the plaintiffs' constitutional right to liberty. Accordingly, the defendant is liable for the plaintiffs' damages arising from their unlawful detention from 19 March 2016 to 22 March 2016.

Citation
[2021] ZAECMHC 2
Parties
Plaintiff: Lundi Morrison; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 January 2021
Case Number
80/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Determination
Outcome
Defendant held liable for plaintiffs' damages arising from unlawful detention from 19 March 2016 to 22 March 2016.
Judges
B Majiki
Legal Topics
Unlawful Arrest, Detention Without Warrant, Section 40 Arrest, Constitutional Right to Liberty
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Unlawful Arrest Detention Without Warrant Section 40 Arrest Constitutional Right to Liberty

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lundi Morrison

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' arrest and detention by SAPS members were unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of SAPS members during the arrest and detention.
  3. 3 Whether the arrest without a warrant was justified under section 40(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs were arrested and detained by SAPS members without a warrant and without being informed of any offence. The defendant, who bore the onus to justify the arrest, failed to lead any evidence to show that the arrest was lawful or that the requirements of section 40(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act were met. The plaintiffs' evidence was accepted as truthful, consistent, and honest. The court found that the arrest and detention were arbitrary and unjustified, violating the plaintiffs' constitutional right to liberty. Accordingly, the defendant is liable for the plaintiffs' damages arising from their unlawful detention from 19 March 2016 to 22 March 2016.

Court Disposition

Defendant held liable for plaintiffs' damages arising from unlawful detention from 19 March 2016 to 22 March 2016.

Orders

  • The defendant is hereby held liable for the plaintiffs' damages as a result of their unlawful detention from 19 March 2016 to 22 March 2016.