Motshware and Others v Minister of Safety And Security (449/2011, 450/2011, 451/2011, 452/2011,453/2011, 454/2011) [2013] ZANWHC 74 (12 December 2013)

Motshware and Others v Minister of Safety And Security (449/2011, 450/2011, 451/2011, 452/2011,453/2011, 454/2011) [2013] ZANWHC 74 (12 December 2013)

The court found that the plaintiffs were unlawfully arrested and detained, as conceded by the defendant. The evidence of Legalamitlwa regarding the conditions of detention, loss of reputation, and personal consequences was accepted as representative for all plaintiffs. The court determined that an award of R240,000 per plaintiff was appropriate, reflecting current levels for similar cases. In matter 453/2011, the defendant was ordered to return the seized sound system and 'cross over' within 30 days, failing which the plaintiff may re-enrol the matter for further evidence on value. The court rejected the defendant's lower quantum proposal and found the plaintiffs' claims substantiated by...

Citation
[2013] ZANWHC 74
Parties
Plaintiff: Moamogwa Golden Motshware; Plaintiff: Shadrack Tsietsie Molosi; Plaintiff: Baya Emmanuel Gender; Plaintiff: Isaac Sakaio Olehile; Plaintiff: Gaebonwe Septimus Legalamitlwa; Plaintiff: Moses Moepetsana; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2013
Case Number
449/2011, 450/2011, 451/2011, 452/2011, 453/2011, 454/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum of Damages After Concession of Merits
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims for damages for unlawful arrest and detention are upheld. Plaintiff in matter 453/2011 is entitled to return of seized property or further claim for its value.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Unlawful Arrest, Unlawful Detention, Damages Assessment, Loss of Property
Delict Civil Procedure Unlawful Arrest Unlawful Detention Damages Assessment Loss of Property

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moamogwa Golden Motshware

Plaintiff

Shadrack Tsietsie Molosi

Plaintiff

Baya Emmanuel Gender

Plaintiff

Isaac Sakaio Olehile

Plaintiff

Gaebonwe Septimus Legalamitlwa

Plaintiff

Moses Moepetsana

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum of Damages After Concession of Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages for unlawful and wrongful arrest and detention.
  2. 2 What is the appropriate quantum of damages for each plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff in matter 453/2011 is entitled to the return of seized property or its value.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs were unlawfully arrested and detained, as conceded by the defendant. The evidence of Legalamitlwa regarding the conditions of detention, loss of reputation, and personal consequences was accepted as representative for all plaintiffs. The court determined that an award of R240,000 per plaintiff was appropriate, reflecting current levels for similar cases. In matter 453/2011, the defendant was ordered to return the seized sound system and 'cross over' within 30 days, failing which the plaintiff may re-enrol the matter for further evidence on value. The court rejected the defendant's lower quantum proposal and found the plaintiffs' claims substantiated by...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims for damages for unlawful arrest and detention are upheld. Plaintiff in matter 453/2011 is entitled to return of seized property or further claim for its value.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay R240,000 as damages to each plaintiff in matters 449/2011, 450/2011, 451/2011, 452/2011, 453/2011, and 454/2011, together with interest at 15.5% from the date of issue of the respective summonses to date of payment and costs of suit on the High Court scale.
  • In matter 453/2011, the defendant is ordered to return the plaintiff's sound amplification system and 'cross over' within 30 days, failing which the plaintiff may re-enrol the matter on due notice to claim damages.