Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Sandow v National Director of Public Prosecutions (A93/2023; 82114/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 171 (18 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against absolution in a malicious prosecution claim, finding no prima facie case of lack of probable cause or malice.
Mgoyi and Others v National Minister of Police and Others (13983/2013P; 186/2014P;198/2014P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 116 (2 December 2024)
The court found that the police officers had formed a reasonable suspicion based on the plaintiffs' presence at the scene with a stolen vehicle and their conduct, including attempts to conceal evidence. This suspicion was objectively justified under section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, rendering the arrest and detention lawful. Regarding the claim of malicious prosecution, the court held that the prosecutor acted on prima facie reasonable and probable cause at the first appearance, promptly pursued further investigation, and withdrew charges when evidence proved insufficient. There…
Source excerpt
Sodlala and Another v Minister of Police and Others (2729/2019) [2024] ZAECMHC 89; 2025 (2) SACR 76 (ECM) (14 November 2024)
The court found that the arresting officer acted on reasonable suspicion based on identification by the complainant and instructions from the prosecutor, who had watched clear footage. Although in hindsight waiting for fingerprint results or personally viewing the footage might have been prudent, the officer's actions at the time were justified and lawful under section 40 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The plaintiffs were brought to court without delay and released on bail when they applied. Regarding malicious prosecution, the prosecutor acted cautiously, only enrolling the matter after rece…
Source excerpt
Menyo v Minister of Police and Another (579/2021) [2024] ZAECMHC 74 (17 September 2024)
The High Court held the second defendant liable for malicious prosecution after finding no reasonable and probable cause, malice, and a failed prosecution.
Dituku v National Director of Public Prosecutions (921/2019) [2024] ZANCHC 115 (6 September 2024)
The court found that the plaintiff was prosecuted without reasonable and probable cause and that the prosecution was actuated by malice. The evidence relied upon by the NPA did not implicate the plaintiff in the theft or possession of stolen goats, and the prosecutor failed to objectively assess the available information. The statements of key witnesses exculpated the plaintiff, and the supposed owner of the goats denied ownership and involvement. The prosecutor proceeded with charges despite knowing that the elements of the offences could not be proven, demonstrating reckless disregard for t…
Source excerpt
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Ntjinga (11580/2016) [2024] ZAGPPHC 574 (21 June 2024)
The High Court dismissed leave to appeal in a malicious prosecution matter, holding that setting the law in motion can include deciding to prosecute and proceed to trial.
Koloman and Another v Minister of Police and Another (29/2020) [2024] ZAECBHC 16 (20 June 2024)
The court found that the arresting officers were peace officers who acted on reasonable suspicion that the plaintiffs had committed schedule 1 offences, based on objective evidence including the injured complainant found in the boot of the vehicle, blood, and weapons. The officers exercised their discretion rationally and in good faith, with no evidence of ulterior motive. The detention was justified due to the seriousness of the offences and the need for a formal bail application. Regarding malicious prosecution, the plaintiffs failed to prove malice or absence of reasonable and probable cau…
Source excerpt
Ntjinga v Minister of Police and Another (11580/2016) [2024] ZAGPPHC 426 (16 April 2024)
The court found that the arrest of the plaintiff by the first defendant was lawful, as the arresting officer possessed specific and articulated facts that justified a reasonable suspicion, even if the evidence was later found inadmissible. There was no proof of malice or animus injuriandi in the arrest. However, the prosecution by the second defendant was found to be malicious, as the prosecutor proceeded with the trial despite knowing that the only evidence against the plaintiff was inadmissible and that the charges should have been withdrawn earlier. The prosecutor's conduct was reckless an…
Source excerpt
Ledwaba v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Correctional Service and Others (947/2022) [2024] ZASCA 17 (16 February 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred by considering malice or animus injuriandi before determining the absence of reasonable and probable cause. The correct approach is to first assess whether the prosecution had reasonable and probable cause. Upon reviewing the evidence, including affidavits, memoranda, and the forensic report, the Court found that the prosecution had reasonable and probable cause for each charge at the time the decision to prosecute was made. The withdrawal of certain charges and the appellant’s acquittal on appeal did not negate the existence of reaso…
Source excerpt
Tutshana v Kentucky Fried Chicken (Madeira Drive Thru - Mthatha) and Another (2349/2019) [2023] ZAECMHC 40 (8 August 2023)
The High Court dismissed a claim for assault after finding the plaintiff and his companions caused a disturbance at KFC and the second defendant acted in self-defence.
Explore more
