Sabisa and Another v Minister of Police (2889/2016) [2018] ZAECMHC 35 (31 July 2018)

Sabisa and Another v Minister of Police (2889/2016) [2018] ZAECMHC 35 (31 July 2018)

The court held that, where the defendant admits the arrest and detention but pleads a special defence that the arrest was lawful by virtue of a valid warrant, the evidential burden to justify the lawfulness of the arrest and detention shifts to the defendant. The Rule 37 minute reflects the parties' agreement that, upon admission of arrest, the defendant must justify the lawfulness. The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim establish a single cause of action for unlawful arrest and detention, and the defendant's plea constitutes a special defence requiring justification. Therefore, the defendant must begin leading evidence at trial. The ruling on the duty to begin is...

Citation
[2018] ZAECMHC 35
Parties
Plaintiff: Thandekile Nelson Sabisa; Plaintiff: Lawrence Nzimeni Mambila; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Case Number
2889/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
The defendant is ordered to begin adducing evidence at trial and to pay the costs of the hearing on the opposed motion court scale.
Judges
Z.M. Nhlangulela
Legal Topics
Onus of Adducing Evidence, Unlawful Arrest and Detention, Rule 39 Application, Burden of Proof
Civil Procedure Delict Onus of Adducing Evidence Unlawful Arrest and Detention Rule 39 Application Burden of Proof

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thandekile Nelson Sabisa

Plaintiff

Lawrence Nzimeni Mambila

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which party bears the duty to begin leading evidence at trial where the defendant pleads a special defence of lawful arrest and detention by warrant.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's plea of lawful arrest and detention shifts the evidential burden to the defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim establish a single cause of action for unlawful arrest and detention.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, where the defendant admits the arrest and detention but pleads a special defence that the arrest was lawful by virtue of a valid warrant, the evidential burden to justify the lawfulness of the arrest and detention shifts to the defendant. The Rule 37 minute reflects the parties' agreement that, upon admission of arrest, the defendant must justify the lawfulness. The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim establish a single cause of action for unlawful arrest and detention, and the defendant's plea constitutes a special defence requiring justification. Therefore, the defendant must begin leading evidence at trial. The ruling on the duty to begin is...

Court Disposition

The defendant is ordered to begin adducing evidence at trial and to pay the costs of the hearing on the opposed motion court scale.

Orders

  • The defendant shall begin to adduce evidence at the trial.
  • The defendant is to pay costs incurred in the hearing of arguments on a scale applicable in the opposed motion court.