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
Zimu v Minister of Police: Republic of South Africa (327/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 75 (13 March 2023)
The High Court found the plaintiff’s warrantless arrest unlawful, but held the defendant liable only for detention up to first court appearance.
Le Roux and Another v Minister of Police Republic of South Africa and Another (1340/2018) [2022] ZAFSHC 301 (4 November 2022)
The High Court held that the plaintiffs were unlawfully arrested and detained until their first court appearance, awarding each R75,000; later detention liability was rejected.
Le Roux and Another v Minister of Police, Republic of South Africa and Another (1340/2018;1343/2018) [2022] ZAFSHC 316 (4 November 2022)
The court found that the police did not have reasonable grounds to arrest the plaintiffs, as the only information available at the time was an oral confession by Jerry, which was not reduced to writing under oath until after the arrests. No further investigation was conducted, and the plaintiffs were not properly interviewed. The arresting officer failed to critically assess the information and did not have evidence under oath linking the plaintiffs to the crime. The subsequent detention from arrest until first court appearance was causally linked to the unlawful arrest and thus also unlawful…
Source excerpt
McKenzie v Gabriel (412/2021) [2022] ZAECGHC 11 (8 February 2022)
The High Court found that a former client defamed his attorney in complaints to a state attorney and the Legal Practice Council, awarding R40,000 damages.
Mjali v Minister of Police (2223, 2226 & 2227/2016) [2020] ZAECMHC 49 (29 September 2020)
The court found that the plaintiffs were arrested and detained without a warrant and without reasonable suspicion of having committed any schedule 1 offence. The defendant failed to call the arresting officer to justify the arrest and did not provide evidence that the requirements of section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act were met. The plaintiffs were not informed of the reasons for their arrest or detention, and the conditions of detention were degrading. The onus to justify the arrest and detention rested on the defendant, who failed to discharge it. The arrest and detention were th…
Source excerpt
Subjee v Minister of Police (13/06352) [2017] ZAGPJHC 396 (10 November 2017)
The High Court held that the plaintiff’s arrest and four-day detention were unlawful, and awarded her R200,000 in damages plus costs.
Shezi v eThekwini Municipality (7762/2015) [2017] ZAKZDHC 39 (11 October 2017)
The court held eThekwini Municipality liable for an alleged unlawful assault and insults by Metro police officers, and adjourned the trial for quantum.
Tinto v Minister of Police (EL18/2012, ECD 318/2012) [2013] ZAECELLC 8; 2014 (1) SACR 267 (ECG) (15 October 2013)
The court found that the police officer acted on detailed information from informers regarding suspicious conduct at a known crime hotspot, which, objectively viewed, provided reasonable grounds for believing a search warrant would have been issued. The officer's actions were not reckless or overzealous and met the standard of reasonableness required by law. However, the statement made by the officer to the plaintiff—implying he had something to hide—was gratuitously insulting and constituted a violation of the plaintiff's dignity. The plaintiff was entitled to damages for injuria, but not fo…
Source excerpt
Lamula and Others v Minister of Police (2012/310) [2013] ZAGPJHC 130 (16 April 2013)
The High Court held that the Minister failed to prove a lawful warrantless arrest under section 40(1)(b) and awarded damages for unlawful arrest and detention.
Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit v Dlamini (A334/2010) [2011] ZAFSHC 192 (29 November 2011)
The appellate court found that the arresting officer, Mokoena, had objective and sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion that the respondent had committed a Schedule 1 offence, based on the complainant's identification, corroborating details, and the respondent's failure to provide an alibi at the time of arrest. The trial court erred in its assessment of the evidence, particularly regarding the reliability of the identification and the requirement for certainty rather than suspicion. The appellate court held that the appellant discharged the onus of justifying the arrest under section 40…
Source excerpt
Explore more
