About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPPHC 707
|
|
Rankweteke v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (A430/2018) [2023] ZAGPPHC 707 (14 August 2023)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case
Number:
A430/2018
(1)
REPORTABLE:
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
(3)
REVISED:
DATE:
14/08/2023
SIGNATURE
In
the matter between:
M
E RANKWETEKE
First Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY
First Respondent
NATIONAL
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
Botsi Thulare AJ
Introduction
[1]
The appellant launched an action against
the first and second respondents claiming damages suffered as a
result of the alleged unlawful
arrest and subsequent detention. The
action was heard by the court
a quo
and
the court held that the arrest and that the subsequent detention,
until the appellant was brought before a court, was unlawful.
The
court
a quo
awarded damages in the amount of R60 000.00 against the first
respondent. The claim against the second respondent, the National
Director of Public Prosecutions, for the continued detention until
the charges against the appellant were withdrawn, was dismissed.
The
court
a quo
held that that period of detention was lawful. This appeal was
directed at the dismissal of the appellant’s claim against
the
second respondent.
[2]
The evidence led before the Court
a quo
was to the effect that
on or about the 17
th
April 2013, the Appellant was
arrested and detained. On 19 April 2013, the appellant appeared in
court. The matter was postponed
for further investigation and to
verify the appellant’s address. The appellant was afforded an
opportunity to obtain legal
representation and a possible application
for bail. The appellant remained in custody.
[3]
The contention and the issue that this court of appeal needed to
determine was whether the continued
detention after the first
appearance was unlawful and unjustified, and whether there was a
justifiable reason for the prosecutor
to enrol the matter and to
remand it?
[4]
It appears from the facts relating to this appeal, that the
prosecutor believed that on the documents before him
a
prima
facie
case was shown, which warranted
further investigation. Furthermore, the address of the appellant
required verification before bail
could be considered.
[5]
On 26 April 2013, the appellant appeared in court, duly represented
by a legal representative. By agreement
a date for a formal bail
application was set, namely 29 April 2013. On the latter date,
bail was set at R1 000.00, and the
appellant was released.
Subsequently the charges against the appellant were withdrawn on 5
June 2013.
[6]
In
De
Klerk v Minister of Police
[1]
the court held that in order to determine whether the continued
detention was lawful, regard must be had to the manner in which
the
remand was influenced.
[7]
In this regard the prosecutor had a statement in the docket that
implicated the appellant driving the
relevant vehicle that was
observed leaving the scene of where the robbery was perpetrated to
where the vehicle was parked afterwards.
In the vehicle a reflector
jacket was found. A reflector jacket was used during the robbery.
Allegedly video footage was available
that related to the commission
of the robbery. That footage was not viewed prior to the arrest and
prior to the appellant appearing
in court.
[8]
A further important issue was that when the appellant first appeared
in court, his address had not been
verified, which impacted on the
issue of bail.
[9]
During his first appearance in court, the appellant was informed why
he would remain in custody, namely,
so that his addressed could be
confirmed; he would be provided with legal assistance and that
further investigation was required.
[10] During
his second appearance the appellant was legally represented. The
representative agreed to a further remand
for a formal application
for bail to be brought and agreed to a particular date in respect
thereof.
[11] The
court
a quo
’s finding that the appellant had not shown
that the prosecutor was at fault in remanding the matter as recorded
above cannot
be faulted.
[12] It
follows that the appeal against the second respondent cannot succeed.
I
give the
following order:
The
appeal is dismissed with costs.
MD BOTSI-THULARE
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
PRETORIA
I agree and it is so
ordered
C J VAN DER WESTHUIZEN
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Date
of hearing:
13 April
2023
Date
of Judgment:
14 August 2023
On
behalf of the Appellant:
D J
Combrink
Instructed
by:
Du
Toit Attorneys
On
behalf of the Second Respondent:
R
Mudau
Instructed
by:
State
Attorney
[1]
2020
(1) SACR 1
(CC) at para 62.