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
Ngobeni v Minister of Police (1838/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 553 (21 May 2025)
The High Court held that the Minister of Police was liable for damages after finding the plaintiff’s arrest, detention, and alleged assault unlawful.
Fouche v Minister of Police (A59/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1176 (11 November 2024)
Appeal dismissed in an unlawful arrest claim arising from the arrest of the appellant in possession of an Audi A1 reported stolen.
Mangala and Another v Minister of Police (2384/2020 ; 2385/2020) [2024] ZAECMKHC 122 (8 October 2024)
The court found that the first arrest of the plaintiff was lawful under section 40(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the police discovered an illegal firearm and ammunition in the vehicle occupied by the plaintiff and his brother, and both denied knowledge of the firearm. The arrest occurred in the presence of police officers, satisfying the statutory requirements. The second arrest was also found lawful under section 40(1)(b), as the police had reasonable suspicion based on the dying declaration implicating the plaintiff and his brother, their presence in the Eastern Cape during the re…
Source excerpt
Macheke v Minister of Police and Another (33703/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 475 (7 May 2024)
The High Court dismissed a plaintiff’s claims for unlawful arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution, finding the arrest and prosecution were lawfully based on reasonable suspicion.
Senti v Minister of Police and Another (36733/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1017 (12 September 2023)
The High Court held that the plaintiff’s arrest and detention for rape of a minor were lawful because police had reasonable grounds for suspicion.
Nqibisa v City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (2018/14594) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1053 (11 August 2023)
The court found that the JMPD officer did not have reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff of committing a Schedule 1 offence, as he failed to verify the complainant's information or assess the case docket. The arrest was therefore unlawful. The SAPS, upon receiving the plaintiff into custody, were required to independently assess the necessity of continued detention but failed to do so and did not call any witnesses to justify the detention. Both defendants failed to discharge the onus of proving lawfulness. The plaintiff's constitutional rights to liberty and security were infringed. Th…
Source excerpt
Smit and Others v Minister of Police (410/2018; 411/2018; 409/2018) [2022] ZANWHC 62 (3 November 2022)
The defendant admitted the arrest and detention of the plaintiffs, thereby bearing the onus to justify their lawfulness. The arresting officer, W/O Nortman, failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements for a lawful arrest under section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. She did not entertain a reasonable suspicion based on the available evidence, did not link the plaintiffs to a Schedule 1 offence, and failed to investigate exculpatory explanations or interview key witnesses prior to arrest. The pointing of a firearm under the Firearm Control Act does not constitute a Schedule 1 offenc…
Source excerpt
Oosthuizen v Minister of Police (23993/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 751 (6 October 2022)
The court found that the arresting officer was in possession of an affidavit confirming the existence of 92 crates of copper and two invoices indicating separate transactions, which provided a prima facie case that the plaintiff had committed an offence in the officer's presence. The officer was not required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt at the time of arrest. The evidence, including documentary and oral testimony, supported the conclusion that the plaintiff concealed the delivery of 92 crates, thereby defeating the ends of justice. The arrest was justified under section 40(1)(a)…
Source excerpt
Minister of Police v Abrahams (CA14/2019) [2019] ZAECGHC 79 (20 August 2019)
The High Court reduced damages for unlawful arrest and detention to R60,000, but held the police lacked reasonable suspicion under section 40(1)(b) of the CPA.
Bam v Minister of Police (1072/2016) [2019] ZAECMHC 24 (21 May 2019)
The court found that the defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff's alleged offence fell within schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm is not explicitly listed. The evidence did not establish that the victim suffered a dangerous wound as required for schedule 1. The arresting officer wrongly assumed the offence qualified and did not investigate the seriousness of the injury. Consequently, the defendant did not discharge the onus of proving the lawfulness of the arrest and detention. The plaintiff's arrest and detention were therefore un…
Source excerpt
Explore more
