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
Potsane v Minister of Police (5780/2019) [2025] ZAFSHC 206 (4 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed a claim for unlawful arrest and detention, finding the officer had reasonable suspicion under section 40(1)(b) of the CPA.
Fokisi v Minister of Police (4258/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 125 (6 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed a damages claim for unlawful arrest and detention, finding the police had reasonable suspicion to arrest for dealing in dagga.
Makhubele v Minister of Police and Another (1320/2021) [2025] ZANWHC 76 (25 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed a claim for unlawful arrest, detention, and assault, finding the police had reasonable grounds to arrest the plaintiff under section 40(1)(b).
Minister of Police v Nirghin (AR107/24) [2025] ZAKZPHC 43 (25 April 2025)
The High Court upheld an appeal against an unlawful arrest claim, holding that the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion and the claim failed.
Moipolai v Minister of Police (1853/2020) [2025] ZANWHC 55 (12 March 2025)
The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving the lawfulness of the plaintiff's arrest. The arresting officer did not critically assess or verify the information provided, nor did he investigate the plaintiff's explanation or interview key witnesses. The officer's approach was predetermined and lacked the exercise of discretion required by law. The plaintiff's explanation for possession of the lawnmower was plausible and uncontradicted, and there was no objectively sustainable reasonable suspicion to justify the arrest. The claim for unlawful detention failed due to the plaintiff's om…
Source excerpt
M.J v Minister of Police and Another (1191/2022) [2025] ZAECMHC 17 (11 March 2025)
The court found that while the arresting officer had some grounds for suspicion based on a confession and circumstantial information, she failed to properly exercise her discretion by not verifying the confession or pursuing available investigative avenues, such as fingerprint comparison, before arresting the plaintiff. The arrest was thus arbitrary and lacked a rational basis, rendering both the arrest and subsequent detention until first court appearance unlawful. Regarding post-court appearance detention, the arresting officer failed to provide the prosecutor and court with necessary infor…
Source excerpt
Buthelezi v Minister of Police and Another (4886/2018) [2025] ZAGPJHC 261 (10 March 2025)
The High Court held that David Buthelezi’s arrest, detention, and prosecution were lawful, finding reasonable suspicion and no malice by the prosecutor.
Dudaka v Minister of Police (3571/2022) [2025] ZAECMHC 10 (27 February 2025)
The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff of committing rape, a Schedule 1 offence, based on the unequivocal identification by the victim and corroboration by her friend and mother. Discrepancies in the J88 and witness statements did not negate the reasonable suspicion, as the victim consistently identified the plaintiff before and after the medical examination. The officer's decision to arrest was rational and justified under section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The purpose of the arrest was to bring the plaintiff before the court,…
Source excerpt
Makopo v Minister of Police (A241/22) [2025] ZAGPPHC 69 (21 January 2025)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over alleged unlawful arrest and detention, holding the arrests were justified under section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Minister of Police v Makhatholela and Others (A131/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 38 (21 January 2025)
The court held that the arresting officer, constable Ledwaba, failed to establish a reasonable suspicion before arresting the respondents. He relied solely on the statement of the complainant without interviewing independent witnesses or requesting explanations from the respondents, despite having ample opportunity to do so. The officer's conduct did not meet the standard set out in Mabona and related authorities, which require a critical assessment of information and consideration of exculpatory explanations. The fact that the amount found on the third respondent exceeded the amount allegedl…
Source excerpt
Explore more
