About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2020
>>
[2020] ZAGPJHC 346
|
|
Letsoenyo v Minister of Police and Another (11530/2014) [2020] ZAGPJHC 346 (21 August 2020)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
(1)
REPORTABLE:
NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER
JUDGES:
NO
(3)
REVISED
:
Yes
CASE
NUMBER:
11530/2014
In
the matter between:
MORENA
SHADRACK
LETSOENYO
PLAINTIFF
- and -
MINISTER OF
POLICE
1ST DEFENDANT
MEMBERS OF SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE
SERVICES
2ND DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
BHOOLA A J :
Introduction
[1] The
plaintiff has instituted a civil action against the defendants in
which he claims damages arising out of his unlawful arrest
and
detention as well as assault by members of the first defendant.
[2]
The claim is pleaded as follows in the plaintiff's particulars of
claim.
"Claim
A:
7. On or
about 19 December 2011 and in or around 6788 Khutsong, extension 3,
at Johannesburg, the plaintiff was wrongfully and unlawfully
arrested
by members of the first defendant, being police officers Mupitsi and
the other officer whose full and further particulars
are unknown to
the plaintiff. As a result of the arrest and detention described
above, the plaintiff suffered:
7.1
deprivations of liberty
7.2
discomfort and inconvenience, and
7.3
contumelia.
Claim B:
8. The
plaintiff was forcefully taken out of the motor vehicle, whilst it
was moving or in motion.
9. As a
result of the said conduct of the members of the SAPS, plaintiff
suffered:
9.1
sustainable severe injuries on the leg.
10. As a
result of the assault described above, the plaintiff has suffered
damages in the amount of R 300 000.00 for deprivation
of liberty,
discomfort and inconvenience, contumelia and soft tissue abrasions.
11. As a
result of the assault described above, plaintiff suffered :
11.1
sustainable leg injuries;
11.2 as a
result of the aforegoing, plaintiff suffered damages in the sum of R
500.000.00, made up as follows and further/alternative
relief;
11.3 pain
and suffering;
11.4 loss
of amenities."
[3]
The defendants admit the arrest on 19 December 2011 by peace officers
who were members
of the South African Police Services ('SAPS'), but
deny that it was unlawful. They plead that the plaintiff was
reasonably suspected
of having committed the offence of theft; that
the arresting officers were peace officers as defined in the Criminal
Procedure
Act, 51 of 1977 ("the Act"); and that the peace
officers were lawfully entitled to arrest the plaintiff without a
warrant.
They further deny that the plaintiff was pushed from a
moving vehicle and plead that the plaintiff, in trying to escape from
lawful
custody, jumped from the moving vehicle and injured his leg.
No facts pertaining to the second arrest (or re-arrest) on 22
December 2011 are pleaded by the plaintiff but this became common
cause during the trial.
Common
cause facts
[4]
It is common between the parties that:
4.1
The members of the first defendant involved in the arrest were at all
material times acting
within their course and scope of employment
with the first defendant.
4.2
The plaintiff was arrested at his residence at Khutsong extension 3,
Johannesburg, on 19
December 2011 without a warrant of arrest.
4.3
The plaintiff was injured
en route
to the police station after
his arrest. He was taken to Khutsong clinic for treatment and was
thereafter transferred to the Carletonville
Hospital where he was
admitted for one night when his right foot was placed in a cast;
4.4
The plaintiff was again arrested on 22 December 2011 without a
warrant of arrest and detained
overnight at the Khutsong SAPS cells.
4.5
The arrest of the plaintiff was as a result of a case docket (case
number: 233/12/2011),
which was opened by the complainant at Khutsong
SAPS on 19 December 2011 in which she alleged that plaintiff had
stolen her cell
phone.
4.6
The plaintiff's warning statement was obtained by Warrant Officer Van
Eck ("Van Eck")
at Khutsong police station on 22 December
2011.
4.7
The plaintiff appeared before the Khutsong Magistrate's Court on 23
December 2011 where
he was released on warning by the court.
The issues
[5]
The following are the issues to be determined by this court:
5.1
whether the arrest of the plaintiff on 19 December 2011 and his
re-arrest and detention
on 22 December 2011 were unlawful and
wrongful;
5.2
whether the plaintiff was assaulted and pushed from a moving vehicle
by the second defendants;
5.3
whether the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of being injured
when he was pushed and/or
suffered damages as a result of his
unlawful arrest and/or detention, and if, so the quantum of damages
for which the defendants
are liable.
The
plaintiff’s evidence
[6]
The plaintiff was the only witness to testify in support of his case.
He testified
that on 19 December 2011 at around 10:00 or 11:00 he was
at his residence at 6788 extension 3 Khutsong with his wife and
sister
when two members of the SAPS, Sergeant Mapitsi ("Mapitsi")
and Sergeant Phuduhudu ("Phuduhudu")
[1]
arrived at his place accompanied by another woman
("the complainant"). The door was open and Mapitsi started
searching
the shack, "
wanted to
start assaulting him
", and asked
if he knew the complainant. He denied knowing her and Mapitsi told
him he was under arrest for theft of her cellphone.
Mapitsi held the
plaintiff by his pants and then pulled and pushed him into the police
motor vehicle. He told Mapitsi that he refused
to be arrested for
something he did not do. In the police motor vehicle he was seated on
the rear seat between Mapitsi and the
rear right hand side door. His
seat belt was not buckled and he was not handcuffed. There were three
other occupants in the vehicle:
Phuduhudu (who was the driver),
Mapitsi and the complainant. He was told they were going to the
police station but they drove around
with him in the township. At one
stage Mapitsi telephoned colleagues for back up and three police
vehicles came to the scene. Mapitsi
communicated with his colleagues
and they then left. They dropped the complainant off leaving him
alone with Mapitsi and Phuduhudu
in the motor vehicle.
[7]
Plaintiff testified further that Mapitsi started assaulting him
saying to Phuduhudu
that that he "
wants to show him..."
.
He instructed her to unlock the car doors and she complied. Mapitsi
then reached over him to open the right hand side door and
pushed him
out while the vehicle was still in motion. He tried to use his hand
to hold on but because of a previous injury he was
unable to. He fell
to the ground and "
noticed that the rear wheel of the vehicle
was driving over him"
. He injured his right ankle as a
result. He fell onto the tarred road and while he was on the ground
the vehicle made a U-turn
and drove fast towards him in order to
injure him. He managed to run away to avoid being hit. He noticed
that his foot was swollen
and bleeding. Mapitsi picked him up and put
him in the back seat of the vehicle and he then went to sit in the
front passenger
seat, leaving the plaintiff alone at the back. Again
he was not handcuffed nor was his seat belt fastened. They again
drove around
with him but he could not remember for how long. They
later drove to the police station with him where an unknown male
officer
reprimanded them because he was injured and instructed them
to take him to the medical clinic. Mapitsi responded by saying he
does
not care about him as he had tried to escape. Mapitsi then
assisted him into the clinic, which is in the same premises. Mapitsi
told the doctor he had been trying to escape. His foot was bandaged
and he was transferred to the Carletonville hospital, were
he was
admitted for one night and his foot was placed in a cast. He was
discharged the following day (20
December 2011) and he
went home. He initially testified that on 21 December 2011 he went to
the Carletonville Police station to
open a case of assault against
Mapitsi and to get a J88 medical report form, but then on reflection
changed this to 22 December,
stating that he had been at home on 21
December.
[8]
He testified that he was not assisted at the Carletonville Police
station as the police
officers there told him that they do not open
cases against police officers. He asked to see the Station Commander
and explained
to him that he wanted to lay charges against the two
police officers from Khutsong. The Station Commander left the room to
make
a call and he then saw Mapitsi and Phuduhudu arriving. Mapitsi
addressed him with the following words : "
you black people
are very fond of money, just tell me how much you want so I can give
you money".
He told Mapitsi he did not want his money. He
told the Station Commander that he refused to drive with them to
Khutsong Police station
as they "
will finish him off".
He was then taken to Khutsong Police Station in another police
vehicle with four other police officers. He was then put in the
cells. He asked why he was being placed in the cells because he was
there to lay charges against the police, but they did not pay
any
attention to him. He was alone in the cell and although he was fed,
he did not like the smell of the blankets. He was never
informed of
his rights. Van Eck came in to take his fingerprints and told him he
was being charged for theft of a cellphone. Van
Eck informed him that
he could get free bail and he would recommend that he should be
released on a warning. He was released on
a warning when he appeared
in court the next day (23 December 2011) and the matter was postponed
to January. The Magistrate noted
he was injured and could not remain
in the cells.
[9]
During cross-examination it was put to him by defendants' counsel
that the police
officers will testify that he told them he refused to
be arrested and is not going back to prison for something he did not
do as
it will revoke his parole. He did not deny that he said this.
He also did not deny that he stopped at the gate of the yard and
refused to proceed into the motor vehicle. He admitted that although
he did not know the complainant but he knew a woman who lived
with
her. He appeared to have difficulty explaining exactly where he was
seated in the vehicle when it was put to him that he was
sitting next
to the door on the right hand side, and he became very agitated. He
eventually conceded that he was sitting next to
the door and Mapitsi
was sitting next to him and would have had to lean over him (
"pass
through me
") to reach the door handle. He explained that
Mapitsi was able to hold the door handle and push him out because he
"
had two hands",
and used one hand to hold the door
and the other to push him out.
[10]
The plaintiff's statement made to the police when he laid a charge of
common assault against
Mapitsi was put to him. He was asked about his
statement that Mapitsi was holding onto him by his t-shirt as he
pushed him and
his t-shirt got torn. In cross-examination he
testified that he does not remember how his t-shirt got torn. He then
said that it
might have been torn when Mapitsi was assaulting him in
the vehicle before he pushed him. His signed statement also recorded
that
he fell onto his back and made use of his elbows to balance. In
cross-examination however, he said that he hit the back of his head
when he fell. He could not explain why the doctor had not recorded
the head injury in the medical reports save to state that the
doctor
informed him it was a minor injury. He could not explain why he had
not informed the police when lodging his complaint that
he had also
sustained a head injury. This was the first time a head injury had
been mentioned. He pretended not to understand when
counsel put to
him that his versions were contradictory.
[11]
The Plaintiff confirmed in cross examination that when he fell he was
unable to move, even when
he noticed the police vehicle being driven
towards him in order to hit him. He confirmed that Mapitsi picked him
up from where
he had fallen and put him back into the vehicle. He
denied that he had been driven to the clinic and testified that he
was taken
to the police station, and that he had been driven to the
barracks at the back of the police station, but admitted in
cross-examination
that the clinic and police station are in the same
place. He was asked to clarify his evidence in chief that he had not
been informed
of his legal rights, and it was put to him that he was
given a document regarding his constitutional rights on 22 December
when
he was detained by Van Eck which he refused to accept and sign.
He denied this.
Defendants'
evidence
[12]
Mapitsi, who was the arresting officer, testified that he has 15
years of experience working
at the SAPS. He was on duty at the
Khutsong detective branch on 19 December 2011 when they were informed
of an incident concerning
theft of a cellphone. He went to the police
station, obtained the docket and went with Phuduhudu to interview the
complainant.
The complainant told them that she knows where the
suspect resides and they drove with her to the plaintiff's residence.
Upon arrival
they found the plaintiff's sister in the main house and
she informed them that the plaintiff (known to the complainant as
"Shenyana")
was in the back yard. They heard a radio
playing and when the plaintiff appeared he asked him to lower the
volume. Mapitsi told
him that the complainant had opened a case
against him for theft of her cellphone and wanted her phone back. He
denied that he
took her cell phone. Mapitsi told him that he was
under arrest for theft of the cellphone and requested him to
accompany them.
The plaintiff then walked with them to the gate of
the yard, saying that he did not take the phone and he had just been
visiting.
He then held onto the gate and refused to walk to the
police vehicle. He said he could not be arrested for something that
he had
not done and was on parole. Mapitsi and Phuduhudu tried
to pull him away from the gate without success. They did not assault
him but told him that because he is being contemptuous they have to
call for back up. He called Van Eck but the plaintiff then
calmed
down and got inside the vehicle. They met the back up team as they
drove and Mapitsi told them that the plaintiff was now
co-operating.
[13]
The plaintiff was seated with the complainant and her child in the
back seat. They dropped the
complainant along the way and he then
moved to sit with the plaintiff at the back. The plaintiff was seated
behind the driver on
the right hand side and he sat on the left hand
side. As they approached a speed bump Phuduhudu slowed down the
vehicle, the plaintiff
opened the door and tried to get out. He
grabbed him and pulled him back, asking him if he is trying to
escape. He grabbed him
by his shirt but he broke loose and fell
outside the vehicle. He then saw him running into a nearby ditch.
They drove to the other
side to block his way but could not see him.
They parked the car and approached the ditch and Mapitsi saw him
sitting and holding
onto his foot saying it was injured. The
plaintiff ran from the car after he had fallen and the first time he
complained of being
injured was when they found him in the ditch.
Mapitsi pulled him out and lifted him back into the vehicle. They
drove to the clinic,
which was on the same premises as the Khutsong
police station. He denied that they first drove around the township
with the injured
plaintiff. He took the plaintiff into the clinic in
a wheelchair. He denied that anyone else reprimanded them for not
taking him
to the clinic. A nurse enquired from the plaintiff what
had happened and he said that he injured himself after jumping out of
the
car as he wanted to avoid arrest because he is under parole. He
was treated there and then transferred to the Carletonville hospital
by ambulance. The police officers informed their senior officer,
Colonel Ferreira, of the plaintiff’s injuries. Mapitsi
confirmed that no police officers accompanied him in the ambulance to
Carletonville nor was he under police guard at the Carletonville
hospital.
[14]
On 22
December 2011 Mapitsi received a call from
Carletonville Police station informing him that "
his suspect
"
was there. On arrival he found the plaintiff but the plaintiff
refused to accompany him to the Khutsong Police Station. He
testified
that he told the plaintiff that there was still a case against him
and he was "
going to be arrested
". The plaintiff
drove with other members of the first defendant to Khutsong Police
Station and when they arrived he detained
the plaintiff and Van Eck
read him his notice of rights and charged him. The plaintiff appeared
in court the following day (23
December 2011) and was released on a
warning when his case was postponed.
[15]
Phuduhudu, who was on Mapitsi’s crew on 19
December
2011, testified that she has 17 years of experience working at the
SAPS. She confirmed that they went to the plaintiff's
residence
and that the complainant pointed the plaintiff out as the person who
had stolen her cellphone. They informed the
plaintiff that he
was a suspect in a theft case. He denied having stolen the phone and
Phuduhudu told him that he should explain
that to the court. The
plaintiff then reluctantly walked with them till the gate but then
refused to proceed further. They tried
to move him towards the
vehicle but he became aggressive. She denied that Mapitsi assaulted
him or that he had searched the plaintiff's
shack. She confirmed that
when Mapitsi called for backup he calmed down and there was no need
for them to use force as he voluntarily
got into the police vehicle.
Her evidence differed from Mapitsi in regard to the seating
arrangements in that she testified that
initially Mapitsi was sitting
on the left at the back with the plaintiff in the middle and the
complainant on the right holding
her daughter. After the complainant
got off the plaintiff was sitting on the right-hand side behind the
driver and she could see
him in her rear view mirror. When they
dropped the complainant off she realized that the plaintiff was
unsettled and told the complainant
to be quick.
[16]
As they were approaching a hump and she slowed down, she heard
Mapitsi say "
hey what are you doing, are you trying to run
away?".
No one had spoken in the car before that, and
Mapitsi had not asked her to unlock the doors as the vehicle was an
old Golf
and not have a central locking system. She stopped the
vehicle immediately and looked around but the plaintiff was already
getting
out of the vehicle with Mapitsi trying to hold onto him by
his t-shirt. He pulled himself out and ran to a nearby ditch (which
she initially testified was 2km away but in cross examination agreed
with Mapitsi's estimate that it was about 5-7m from the road).
She
denied that Mapitsi assaulted the plaintiff in the vehicle or pushed
him out of the moving vehicle, or that they drove towards
him at high
speed in order to injure him. There were bushes and a slope and they
drove around to the other side of the slope when
they saw people
pointing towards the ditch. They walked to the ditch and found him
lying there having injured his foot. Mapitsi
helped him out of the
ditch and back into the motor vehicle. In the vehicle he complained
that he could not go to prison for something
he did not do. They did
not drive around with him but took him straight to the clinic at the
multi-purpose centre, which also houses
the police station. She
confirmed that there was no other officer who instructed them to take
him to the clinic from the police
station. Mapitsi assisted the
plaintiff to get inside the clinic from the car and the plaintiff was
attended to. They told the
nurse (Sister Fikile) attending to him
that he had tried to escape and she recorded this in her statement.
He was later transferred
to Carletonville hospital by ambulance, and
that was the last time she saw him. She denied that she accompanied
Mapitsi on 22 December
when he went to fetch the plaintiff from the
Carletonville police station. After the clinic they went to the
police station and
informed Colonel Ferreira of the incident as he
was the officer on duty and would have recorded the incident.
[17]
In cross-examination she was asked about the value of the cellphone
and she said she did not
know but did not dispute that the value was
recorded in the complaint as R 800.00. She also confirmed that no
warrant of arrest
had been issued but that she and Mapitsi had
exercised their discretion to effect an arrest, and that they had
formed a reasonable
suspicion based on the complainant's statement
and her identification of him as the suspect. She explained that
often when a complainant
points out a suspect, he produces the stolen
item but the plaintiff did not do so.
[18]
In cross examination it was put to her, as was put to Mapitsi (and
which he also admitted), that
they failed to comply with the SAPS
standing orders by,
inter alia
, failing to handcuff the
plaintiff and making sure his seatbelt was fastened. She replied that
they are allowed to use their own
discretion when arresting a person,
and since he was aggressive and resisting arrest they did not want to
embarrass him or agitate
him by handcuffing him. She thought it would
be better if they heard his side of the story at the police station
because they realised
they were not going to "
win him over"
given that he was very aggressive. She confirmed that they did not
read him rights prior to effecting the arrest, and that he was
not
detained at the police station that day because of his injury.
Was the
arrest and detention unlawful?
[19]
The onus rests on the first defendant it to justify the arrest as
lawful:
Minister of Law and Order & Others v Hurley &
Others
1986 (3) SA 568
(A). The defendants rely on section
40 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Act No 51 of 1977 ("the
Act") which provides
that a peace officer may without warrant
arrest any person whom he reasonably suspects of having committed an
offence referred
to in Schedule 1 (other than the offence of escaping
from lawful custody). The defendants thus have to prove the four
jurisdictional
facts set out in section 40 (1) (b) for a lawful
arrest, and once these are shown to have been present the police
officer exercises
a discretion as to whether or not to arrest the
offender:
Minister of Safety and Security v Sekhoto & Another
2011 (5) SA 367
(SCA). The jurisdictional requirements are that:
1. The
arresting officer was a peace officer;
2. The
arresting officer entertained a suspicion;
3. The
suspicion was that the suspect had committed a Schedule 1 offence:
De
Klerk v Minister of Police
2018 (2) SACR 28
(SCA).
4. The
suspicion was based on reasonable grounds:
Duncan v Minister of
Law and Order
1986 (2) SA 805
(A) at 818G-H;
Minister of
Safety and Security v Sekhoto & Another
2011 (5) SA 367
(SCA).
[20]
As to whether the discretion to arrest is exercised in good faith,
rationally and not arbitrarily,
the court held in
Minister
of Safety and Security v Sekhoto
2011
(5) SA 367
(SCA) [39] that:
"
This
would mean that
peace
officers are entitled to exercise their discretion as they see fit,
provided that they stay within the bounds of rationality.
The
standard is not breached because an officer exercises the discretion
in a manner other than that deemed optimal by the court.
A
number of choices may be open to him, all of which may fall within
the range of rationality. The standard is not perfection,
or
even the optimum, judged from the vantage of hindsight and so long as
the discretion is exercised within this range, the standard
is not
breached."
[21]
The first issue to be considered is whether the arresting officers,
Mapitsi and Phuduhudu, entertained
a reasonable suspicion that the
plaintiff had committed a Schedule 1 offence. Counsel for the
plaintiff conceded that theft
is listed in schedule 1 as an offence
for which a peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant if
such officer suspects
that someone has committed such an offence. The
defendant’s witnesses testified that the plaintiff was arrested
after having
suspected of having committed an offence of theft of a
cellphone, and the plaintiff was identified by the complainant as the
person
who stole her cellphone. She made a statement to the police
and took the two peace officers to the plaintiff's residence and
pointed
him out. Hence, the officers had reasonable grounds to
suspect that the plaintiff had committed the offence and exercised
their
discretion to arrest him. This in my view renders the arrest
lawful and justified despite the lack of a warrant of arrest.
[22]
Plaintiff's counsel submitted that the plaintiff was arrested on 19
December 2011 and re-arrested
on 22 December 2011 on the same facts
and with no new evidence at hand. Furthermore,
the
arrest and detention of the plaintiff on 22 December 2011 was not
intended at taking the plaintiff to court, was intended at
harassing
and threatening him, and further that it was intended at preventing
him from opening a criminal case against Mapitsi
for the assault on
19 December 2011. This version, however, was never put to the
defendant's witnesses nor was malicious prosecution
pleaded.
It
was clear from the evidence what the reason was for the arrest on 19
December and in my view that this remained valid on 22 December.
Was the
plaintiff assaulted?
[23]
The plaintiff testified that Mapitsi assaulted him. During
cross-examination he testified that
he was assaulted at his place of
residence. This was contrary to the evidence of the defence witnesses
as Phuduhudu was with Mapitsi
and corroborated Mapitsi’s
testimony that he did not assault the plaintiff. The plaintiff
further did not call the women
who were in the house or in the shack
as they could have witnessed any assault on him. Insofar as the
plaintiff alleges that he
sustained injuries as the result of assault
when Mapitsi pushed him from a moving vehicle, during
cross-examination the plaintiff
failed to give a proper explanation
as to how the police pushed him out of the moving vehicle, and became
defensive and angry when
the contradictions in his evidence were put
to him, to such extent that the court had to intervene. He then
proceeded to a lengthy
explanation of issues that were not relevant
to the case, clearly in an effort to avoid further questions. It
appears therefore
on a balance of probabilities that Mapitsi did not
assault the plaintiff, and that the ankle injury that he sustained
was as the
result of his own conduct when he was trying to escape
from the vehicle. This is also consistent with his version that he
was out
on parole and did not want to face arrest.
[24]
Plaintiff's counsel did not challenge the police witnesses on their
evidence that he had been
injured whilst escaping. Rather, he
submitted that even if the plaintiff was not pushed as he asserted,
the police officers
had a legal duty to protect the plaintiff from any injuries and owed
a duty of care towards him. Their failure
to act accordingly
encroached on his right to security and protection as contemplated by
section 12(1)(c) of the Constitution and
Standing Order G350 item 1
(b), 2(b) and 3. This submission is based on the evidence that
Phuduhudu
and
Mapitsi did not handcuff the plaintiff, that they did not activate
the door locks and child safety locks were not activated
when they
were transporting the plaintiff, and they did not ensure that his
seat belt was fastened.
Plaintiff's
counsel submitted that this was a clear contravention of Standing
Order 350 Item 3 (1)(a) which dictates that every
person arrested for
an offence must be placed in restraining measures until he or she is
handed over to the community service center
commander or until he or
she is placed in a police cell. Insofar as this implies that the
plaintiff tried to escape because he
had not been restrained, it
would seem to confirm the version of the police. In any event the
breach of a duty of care was not
pleaded and hence this submission
must be disregarded.
Conclusion
[25]
The reliability of the plaintiff's evidence as well as his
credibility as a witness requires
mention. He was not an impressive
witness. His counsel stepped in to assist him by objecting during his
cross-examination that
the events occurred nine years ago and he
could not recall the exact details any longer, but this does not
detract from my observation
that he contradicted himself on many
occasions, was evasive and was a difficult and aggressive witness.
His version falls to be
rejected on a balance of probabilities.
[26]
In evaluating the evidence I find no factual or legal basis for the
submission that the arrest
was an abuse of authority, was irrational,
constituted harassment and was not based on a reasonable
suspicion or that there
was an omission to comply with the duty of
care (which in any event was not pleaded). I agree with the
submission by defendants'
counsel that in these circumstances the
jurisdictional requirements had been met and the arresting officers,
acting on a reasonable
suspicion, properly exercised their discretion
to effect the arrest of the plaintiff. Hence, the arrest and
detention overnight
must be found to have been lawful and the claim
dismissed.
Order:
[27]
In the result I make the following order:
The plaintiff's claim is
dismissed with costs.
U. BHOOLA
Acting Judge of the High Court of South Africa
Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg
Date of hearing: Heard by videoconference on 27, 28
and 30 July 2020.
Date of judgment: Electronically handed down and sent
to parties by email on 21 August 2020.
Appearances:
Plaintiff's counsel : Adv. B.M Khumalo
Instructed by: Mamathuntsha Inc, Johannesburg
Defendants' counsel: Adv. T. Mabuza
Instructed by: The State Attorney, Johannesburg
[1]
Both of them testified that they were Constables
at the time and currently hold the rank of Sergeant. Sgt. Phuduhudu
also testified
that her surname changed from Motshidi after her
marriage.