Ramdin v Minister of Police (07223/14) [2018] ZAGPJHC 661 (13 December 2018)

Ramdin v Minister of Police (07223/14) [2018] ZAGPJHC 661 (13 December 2018)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a direct breach of a constitutional right warranting an award of constitutional damages. The defendants had already conceded liability and agreed to pay general and special damages, which fully compensated the plaintiffs for their loss. Awarding constitutional damages in addition would result in overcompensation, contrary to the principles established in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security. The court held that constitutional damages are only appropriate where no other effective remedy exists and where a direct constitutional breach is proven. As these conditions were not met, the claim for constitutional damages was dismissed.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 661
Parties
Plaintiff: Royheed Ramdin; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2018
Case Number
07223/14
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum and Constitutional Damages
Outcome
The claim for constitutional damages is dismissed. The defendants are ordered to pay general damages and damages for future medical expenses as agreed.
Judges
Makhoba
Legal Topics
Unlawful Arrest, Constitutional Damages, General Damages, Quantum of Damages, Punitive Damages, Compensatory Damages
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Delict Unlawful Arrest Constitutional Damages General Damages Quantum of Damages Punitive Damages +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royheed Ramdin

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum and Constitutional Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to constitutional damages in addition to general and special damages for the unlawful killing of their son by the police.
  2. 2 Whether the award of constitutional damages would result in overcompensation given the settlement of general and special damages.
  3. 3 Whether there was a direct breach of a constitutional right warranting constitutional damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a direct breach of a constitutional right warranting an award of constitutional damages. The defendants had already conceded liability and agreed to pay general and special damages, which fully compensated the plaintiffs for their loss. Awarding constitutional damages in addition would result in overcompensation, contrary to the principles established in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security. The court held that constitutional damages are only appropriate where no other effective remedy exists and where a direct constitutional breach is proven. As these conditions were not met, the claim for constitutional damages was dismissed.

Court Disposition

The claim for constitutional damages is dismissed. The defendants are ordered to pay general damages and damages for future medical expenses as agreed.

Orders

  • The first defendant is to pay the plaintiffs damages for future medical expenses in the amount of R66,000.00.
  • The first defendant is to pay the plaintiffs general damages in the amount of R300,000.00.