Relyant Trading (Pty) Ltd. v Shongwe and Another (472/05) [2006] ZASCA 162; [2007] 1 All SA 375 (SCA) (26 September 2006)

Relyant Trading (Pty) Ltd. v Shongwe and Another (472/05) [2006] ZASCA 162; [2007] 1 All SA 375 (SCA) (26 September 2006)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant, Relyant Trading (Pty) Ltd, was not liable for wrongful arrest because the arrest was effected by the police, not by the appellant or its employees. The evidence showed that the employees merely provided information and pointed out the respondent to the police, who then independently decided to arrest. Regarding malicious prosecution, the court found that the employees of the appellant, particularly Ms Mahlangu, had reasonable and probable cause to believe the respondent was the perpetrator, based on prior interactions and observations. There was no evidence of malice or intention to injure. The requirements for malicious prosecution...

Citation
[2006] ZASCA 162
Parties
Appellant: Relyant Trading (Pty) Limited; Respondent: S P Shongwe; Respondent: Minister of Safety & Security
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 September 2006
Case Number
472/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Legodi J
Outcome
Appeal upheld; claims against the appellant for wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution dismissed.
Judges
Cameron, Nugent, Mlambo, Combrinck, Malan
Legal Topics
Wrongful Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, Reasonable and Probable Cause, Vicarious Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Wrongful Arrest Malicious Prosecution Reasonable and Probable Cause Vicarious Liability

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Relyant Trading (Pty) Limited

Appellant

S P Shongwe

Respondent

Minister of Safety & Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Legodi J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is liable for wrongful arrest of the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is liable for malicious prosecution of the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the employees of the appellant acted without reasonable and probable cause in identifying the respondent as the perpetrator.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant, Relyant Trading (Pty) Ltd, was not liable for wrongful arrest because the arrest was effected by the police, not by the appellant or its employees. The evidence showed that the employees merely provided information and pointed out the respondent to the police, who then independently decided to arrest. Regarding malicious prosecution, the court found that the employees of the appellant, particularly Ms Mahlangu, had reasonable and probable cause to believe the respondent was the perpetrator, based on prior interactions and observations. There was no evidence of malice or intention to injure. The requirements for malicious prosecution...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; claims against the appellant for wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the order of the court a quo are set aside and replaced with: 'The plaintiff’s claims against the second defendant are dismissed with costs.'