Tesana and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions (3844/2017) [2019] ZAECGHC 28 (19 March 2019)

Tesana and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions (3844/2017) [2019] ZAECGHC 28 (19 March 2019)

The court found that the plaintiffs were not under arrest when they appeared in court, having been issued warnings under section 72 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The prosecutor failed to inform the magistrate of this fact, leading to the mistaken belief that the plaintiffs were in custody and necessitating a formal bail application. This omission was a breach of the public law duty to protect the plaintiffs' right to freedom. The magistrate's order for detention was causally linked to the prosecutor's failure to disclose the plaintiffs' status. The detention from 26 June 2015 to 3 July 2015 was therefore unlawful, and the plaintiffs are entitled to damages.

Citation
[2019] ZAECGHC 28
Parties
Plaintiff: Ayanda Tesana; Plaintiff: Xabisa Menzi; Plaintiff: Brandon Syster; Plaintiff: Luvuyo Kula; Defendant: National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2019
Case Number
3844/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Trial Judgment
Outcome
The plaintiffs succeeded in their claim for damages for unlawful detention.
Judges
C Plasket
Legal Topics
Unlawful Detention, Public Law Duty, Damages for Wrongful Detention, Constitutional Rights, Causation, Quantum of Damages
Delict Criminal Law Unlawful Detention Public Law Duty Damages for Wrongful Detention Constitutional Rights Causation Quantum of Damages

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

Parties

Ayanda Tesana

Plaintiff

Xabisa Menzi

Plaintiff

Brandon Syster

Plaintiff

Luvuyo Kula

Plaintiff

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' detention from 26 June 2015 to 3 July 2015 was unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the public prosecutor owed a legal duty to the plaintiffs to protect their right to freedom.
  3. 3 Whether the prosecutor breached that duty by failing to inform the magistrate that the plaintiffs were on warning and not under arrest.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs were not under arrest when they appeared in court, having been issued warnings under section 72 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The prosecutor failed to inform the magistrate of this fact, leading to the mistaken belief that the plaintiffs were in custody and necessitating a formal bail application. This omission was a breach of the public law duty to protect the plaintiffs' right to freedom. The magistrate's order for detention was causally linked to the prosecutor's failure to disclose the plaintiffs' status. The detention from 26 June 2015 to 3 July 2015 was therefore unlawful, and the plaintiffs are entitled to damages.

Court Disposition

The plaintiffs succeeded in their claim for damages for unlawful detention.

Orders

  • It is declared that the detention of the first, second, third and fourth plaintiffs from 26 June 2015 until 3 July 2015 was unlawful.
  • The plaintiffs are each awarded damages in the amount of R150,000, together with interest at the legal rate from date of demand to date of payment.