Nahour and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (6057/2007) [2018] ZAKZPHC 65 (3 August 2018)

Nahour and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (6057/2007) [2018] ZAKZPHC 65 (3 August 2018)

The plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus of proving causation between the prosecutrix's irregularity and their damages. The evidence showed that, even excluding the complainant's testimony, the plaintiffs had a compelling case to answer and could have been convicted on the remaining evidence. Their acquittal by the Supreme Court of Appeal was not proof of innocence but rather a finding that the State had not met the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' admitted criminal conduct—procuring sex for reward—constituted turpitude and was instrumental to their defence and civil claim. Applying the ex turpi causa principle, the court held that a claimant...

Citation
[2018] ZAKZPHC 65
Parties
Plaintiff: Vishnu Nahour; Plaintiff: Neville Michael Charles; Defendant: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 August 2018
Case Number
6057/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Determination
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel and costs reserved in the exception.
Judges
D Pillay
Legal Topics
Wrongful Conviction, Causation in Delict, Ex Turpi Causa, State Liability, Prescription Act, Constitutional Values
Delict Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Wrongful Conviction Causation in Delict Ex Turpi Causa State Liability Prescription Act +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vishnu Nahour

Plaintiff

Neville Michael Charles

Plaintiff

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages arising from their convictions and imprisonment.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs discharged the onus of proving causation between the prosecutrix's irregularity and their damages.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' admitted criminal conduct bars their civil claim for damages under the ex turpi causa principle.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus of proving causation between the prosecutrix's irregularity and their damages. The evidence showed that, even excluding the complainant's testimony, the plaintiffs had a compelling case to answer and could have been convicted on the remaining evidence. Their acquittal by the Supreme Court of Appeal was not proof of innocence but rather a finding that the State had not met the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' admitted criminal conduct—procuring sex for reward—constituted turpitude and was instrumental to their defence and civil claim. Applying the ex turpi causa principle, the court held that a claimant...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel and costs reserved in the exception.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' action is dismissed.
  • The plaintiffs are ordered to pay the defendant's costs, including the costs of two counsel and the costs reserved in the exception.