Sikhunana v Minister of Safety and Security (669/04) [2013] ZAECPEHC 23 (18 February 2013)

Sikhunana v Minister of Safety and Security (669/04) [2013] ZAECPEHC 23 (18 February 2013)

The court found that once the plaintiff was remanded in custody by order of the magistrate following the refusal of bail, any unlawfulness in the initial arrest ceased to be relevant and the subsequent detention was lawful. The pleadings did not support a claim for malicious proceedings, as malice was neither pleaded nor substantiated. Regarding prescription, the court held that the claim for damages arising from arrest and detention prior to 12 March 2001 had prescribed, as the plaintiff had knowledge of the facts and the identity of the defendant from the date of arrest, and no facts were pleaded to support interruption or delay of prescription. Both special pleas were upheld, resulting...

Citation
[2013] ZAECPEHC 23
Parties
Plaintiff: Phakamile Sikhunana; Defendant: The Minister of Safety and Security
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2013
Case Number
669/04
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Pleas Separated and Adjudicated Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Both special pleas succeed; plaintiff's claims for detention after 1 September 2000 and for arrest and detention prior to 12 March 2001 are dismissed.
Judges
M.J. Lowe
Legal Topics
Unlawful Detention, Wrongful Arrest, Prescription Act, Malicious Prosecution, Actio Iniuriarum
Delict Unlawful Detention Wrongful Arrest Prescription Act Malicious Prosecution Actio Iniuriarum

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phakamile Sikhunana

Plaintiff

The Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Pleas Separated and Adjudicated Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate's order remanding the plaintiff in custody rendered subsequent detention lawful, even if the initial arrest was unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from arrest and detention prior to 12 March 2001 has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings support a claim for malicious proceedings or only deprivation of liberty.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that once the plaintiff was remanded in custody by order of the magistrate following the refusal of bail, any unlawfulness in the initial arrest ceased to be relevant and the subsequent detention was lawful. The pleadings did not support a claim for malicious proceedings, as malice was neither pleaded nor substantiated. Regarding prescription, the court held that the claim for damages arising from arrest and detention prior to 12 March 2001 had prescribed, as the plaintiff had knowledge of the facts and the identity of the defendant from the date of arrest, and no facts were pleaded to support interruption or delay of prescription. Both special pleas were upheld, resulting...

Court Disposition

Both special pleas succeed; plaintiff's claims for detention after 1 September 2000 and for arrest and detention prior to 12 March 2001 are dismissed.

Orders

  • The first and second special pleas raised by defendant are to be decided separately in terms of rule 33(4), separated from the remainder of the cause of action.
  • The first special plea succeeds; plaintiff's claim in respect of detention for the period 1 September 2000 to the date of his release is dismissed.