Rossouw v Mogorotsi and Another (HCA30/2019) [2022] ZALMPPHC 42 (10 August 2022)

Rossouw v Mogorotsi and Another (HCA30/2019) [2022] ZALMPPHC 42 (10 August 2022)

The court found that the appellant failed to prove that the respondents acted without reasonable and probable cause or with malice in instituting criminal proceedings. The evidence showed that the respondents had a reasonable basis to lay a complaint with the police after feeling threatened and humiliated by the appellant's conduct, which included chasing them and allegedly uttering a racial insult. The formulation of charges was the responsibility of the police and prosecution, not the respondents. The court accepted the first respondent's email to the sheriff as credible evidence of his state of mind and intent. The appellant's own conduct, including unlocking the gate and giving chase,...

Citation
[2022] ZALMPPHC 42
Parties
Appellant: Vincent Andries Rossouw; Respondent: Rapula Lucky Mogorotsi; Respondent: Isaac Pheto
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 August 2022
Case Number
HCA30/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order of the Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Kganyago, Muller
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Crimen Injuria, Racial Insult, Reasonable and Probable Cause, Dignity, Assault
Delict Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Crimen Injuria Racial Insult Reasonable and Probable Cause Dignity Assault

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vincent Andries Rossouw

Appellant

Rapula Lucky Mogorotsi

Respondent

Isaac Pheto

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order of the Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents acted without reasonable and probable cause and with malice in instituting criminal proceedings against the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant proved all requirements for malicious prosecution.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent's counterclaim for crimen injuria was correctly upheld.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to prove that the respondents acted without reasonable and probable cause or with malice in instituting criminal proceedings. The evidence showed that the respondents had a reasonable basis to lay a complaint with the police after feeling threatened and humiliated by the appellant's conduct, which included chasing them and allegedly uttering a racial insult. The formulation of charges was the responsibility of the police and prosecution, not the respondents. The court accepted the first respondent's email to the sheriff as credible evidence of his state of mind and intent. The appellant's own conduct, including unlocking the gate and giving chase,...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.