Sandow v National Director of Public Prosecutions (A93/2023; 82114/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 171 (18 February 2025)

Sandow v National Director of Public Prosecutions (A93/2023; 82114/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 171 (18 February 2025)

The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for malicious prosecution. The evidence presented, including the witness statements and the testimony of Adv Jacobs, did not demonstrate the absence of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution. The statements of the witnesses provided a factual basis for the charge, and there was no indication of malice or unconstitutional conduct by the respondent. The appeal court's findings and the post-mortem report were not relevant to the existence of probable cause at the time the prosecution was initiated. The appellant did not address the requirement of animus injuriandi in his evidence. Accordingly, the court held...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 171
Parties
Appellant: David Gordon Clive Sandow; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2025
Case Number
A93/2023; 82114/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Absolution From the Instance in Malicious Prosecution Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Lenyai, Basson, Mpshe
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Absolution From the Instance, Reasonable and Probable Cause, Animus Injuriandi
Delict Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Absolution From the Instance Reasonable and Probable Cause Animus Injuriandi

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Gordon Clive Sandow

Appellant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Absolution From the Instance in Malicious Prosecution Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent acted without reasonable and probable cause in prosecuting the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent acted with malice (animus injuriandi) in instituting and maintaining the prosecution.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant established a prima facie case for malicious prosecution sufficient to resist absolution from the instance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for malicious prosecution. The evidence presented, including the witness statements and the testimony of Adv Jacobs, did not demonstrate the absence of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution. The statements of the witnesses provided a factual basis for the charge, and there was no indication of malice or unconstitutional conduct by the respondent. The appeal court's findings and the post-mortem report were not relevant to the existence of probable cause at the time the prosecution was initiated. The appellant did not address the requirement of animus injuriandi in his evidence. Accordingly, the court held...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.