South Africa Case Law

Khanyile v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (7079/08)

Khanyile v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (7079/08) [2012] ZAKZDHC 12; 2012 (2) SACR 238 (KZD) (27 January 2012)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

7079/08

Judge

Murugasen

The court found that although the warrant was properly authorized, the arresting officer failed to satisfy himself of the terms of the protection order and the nature of the alleged breach before executing the warrant. The officer acted solely on the complainant's verbal report and did not have the necessary documents or statement to establish reasonable grounds for suspecting imminent harm. The subsequent statement did not indicate a breach justifying arrest or continued detention. The officer's failure to apply his mind to the requirements of the Domestic Violence Act and the constitutional…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Arrest
• Domestic Violence Act
• Damages For Unlawful Detention
• Police Liability
• Constitutional Rights
• Protection Order Enforcement

Glass v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (AR 335/10)

Glass v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (AR 335/10) [2011] ZAKZPHC 3 (11 February 2011)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 335/10

Judges

Lopes, Patel, D Pillay

The High Court dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of a damages claim for alleged wrongful arrest under the Domestic Violence Act.

• Domestic Violence Act
• Wrongful Arrest
• Damages
• Protection Order Enforcement
• Domestic-violence-act
• Wrongful-arrest

Minister of Safety and Security and Others v W (CA 98/08)

Minister of Safety and Security and Others v W (CA 98/08) [2008] ZAECHC 204; 2009 (4) SA 213 (E) (11 December 2008)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

CA 98/08

Judges

Jones, Jansen, Goosen

The appellate court found no material irregularity or clear error in the trial court’s evaluation of the evidence. The respondent’s version was more credible and probable than the appellants’, whose witnesses were found to be regimented and deceitful. The police were negligent in failing to enforce the protection order and arrest the respondent’s husband, and this omission was both the factual and legal cause of the respondent’s damages. The harm suffered was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the police’s failure, and no novus actus interveniens broke the chain of causation. Policy cons…

Source excerpt

• Negligent Omission
• Domestic Violence Act
• Causation
• Remoteness Of Damage
• Liability Of Police
• Protection Order Enforcement