Scott and Another v Minister of Safety and Security (1552/2005) [2013] ZAGPPHC 49 (13 February 2013)

Scott and Another v Minister of Safety and Security (1552/2005) [2013] ZAGPPHC 49 (13 February 2013)

The court found that the unlawful arrest and detention of the first plaintiff was the direct cause of the cancellation of the agreement with Field and Stream, resulting in substantial financial loss for the second plaintiff. The evidence of Mr Cassidy was accepted as proving the cancellation and its reasons. The quantum of damages for the first plaintiff was set at R75,000 for trauma and deprivation, plus R577,610 for wasted advertising costs. The second plaintiff's prospective loss of income was calculated at R190,544,385 over 25 years, but discounted at 15% to account for uncertainties, resulting in an award of R49,268,289. The court held that the discount rate should be higher than...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 49
Parties
Plaintiff: Jaco Scott; Plaintiff: Scottco (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 February 2013
Case Number
1552/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum Determination After Merits Decided
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs.
Judges
L I Vorster
Legal Topics
Unlawful Arrest, Unlawful Detention, Loss of Income, Damages Quantification, Vicarious Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Unlawful Arrest Unlawful Detention Loss of Income Damages Quantification 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaco Scott

Plaintiff

Scottco (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum Determination After Merits Decided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate quantum of damages for the first plaintiff's unlawful arrest and detention?
  2. 2 Is the second plaintiff entitled to damages for loss of income resulting from the cancellation of the agreement with Field and Stream?
  3. 3 Should the wasted advertising costs incurred by the first plaintiff be recoverable as damages?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the unlawful arrest and detention of the first plaintiff was the direct cause of the cancellation of the agreement with Field and Stream, resulting in substantial financial loss for the second plaintiff. The evidence of Mr Cassidy was accepted as proving the cancellation and its reasons. The quantum of damages for the first plaintiff was set at R75,000 for trauma and deprivation, plus R577,610 for wasted advertising costs. The second plaintiff's prospective loss of income was calculated at R190,544,385 over 25 years, but discounted at 15% to account for uncertainties, resulting in an award of R49,268,289. The court held that the discount rate should be higher than...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • The defendant must pay the first plaintiff R75,000 as damages for unlawful arrest and detention.
  • The defendant must pay the first plaintiff R577,610 for wasted advertising costs.