Summary of Judgment

Introduction

The proceedings concerned a civil claim for damages arising from the unlawful arrest and killing of the plaintiffs’ son, allegedly at the hands of a police officer. The plaintiffs were Mrs Sharon Ramdin and Mr Royheed Ramdin, and the defendants were the Minister of Police (as first defendant) and Raymond Le Roux (as second defendant).

The matter came before the Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg, as a trial in which the merits were conceded by the defendants on the day of trial, resulting in the issues of liability being resolved in the plaintiffs’ favour. Certain heads of damages were also settled by agreement between the parties before the commencement of the trial.

After the settlement of liability and two heads of damages, the dispute that remained for determination was narrow. The only outstanding issue for the court was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an additional amount of R3 000 000.00 claimed as constitutional damages, over and above the agreed compensatory awards.

Material Facts

It was common cause that, on the day of trial, the defendants conceded liability, with the result that the merits were settled in favour of the plaintiffs. It was also common cause that the claim for future medical expenses was settled in the amount of R66 000.00, and the claim for general damages was settled in the amount of R300 000.00.

The court recorded that the only remaining issue was the plaintiffs’ claim for R3 000 000.00 constitutional damages. In support of that claim, both plaintiffs and their daughter testified. The defendants led no evidence.

The evidence relied upon by the court for context was that the plaintiffs’ son had been killed by the second defendant, that the police had not explained to the family why the killing occurred, and that the death had severe emotional and physical consequences for the plaintiffs. Mr Ramdin testified that his health deteriorated physically and mentally after the death. Mrs Ramdin testified that the deceased was her only son and that her life changed drastically, with deterioration in her emotional and physical well-being. The plaintiffs’ daughter testified regarding the events leading to the discovery of her brother’s death and the ongoing impact on her parents’ health and emotional state.

Legal Issues

The central legal question was whether, on the facts of the case, the plaintiffs had established an entitlement to an award of constitutional damages in the amount of R3 000 000.00, given that compensatory damages (including general damages) had already been agreed and the merits conceded.

The dispute required the court to evaluate the availability and appropriateness of a constitutional remedy in the form of monetary compensation, particularly whether there was a sufficient connection between an award and a breach of a constitutional nature, and whether such an award would constitute an impermissible form of punitive or duplicative compensation. The determination therefore involved the application of constitutional-remedy principles to the established facts, coupled with a value judgment about whether an additional constitutional award would be justified in light of existing compensation.

Court’s Reasoning

The court approached the question by reference to authorities dealing with constitutional damages and their relationship to ordinary compensatory damages. It relied in particular on the principle that constitutional damages are not to be awarded as an automatic additional layer of compensation where common-law damages already provide appropriate relief.

In Fose v Minister of Safety and Security (1997) ZACC 6, the Constitutional Court held that a plaintiff should not receive a large amount of money over and above compensatory damages to which they are entitled under the common law, and that it is inappropriate to use scarce public resources to pay punitive damages where a plaintiff has already been fully compensated, particularly where there is no real assurance that such payment will have deterrent or preventative effect on the state in future. The court treated this authority as setting a cautionary approach to monetary constitutional remedies, especially where the proposed award would be punitive in effect.

The court also referred to Greater Benoni City Council v Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd 2004 (6) SA 40 (SCA), where compensation was awarded due to infringement of constitutional property rights in circumstances where the squatters could not be removed. The court cited this decision as an illustration that constitutional damages may be awarded where a party’s constitutional rights have been infringed and compensation is an appropriate remedy in context.

Further reference was made to MEC, Department of Welfare, Eastern Cape v Kate [2006] ZASCA 49; 2006 (4) SA 478 (SCA). In that matter, the respondent’s disability grant application was approved after a delay of 40 months, which was held to breach a substantive constitutional right; the court held that the only remedy was a constitutional remedy in the form of constitutional damages. The present court treated Kate as demonstrating that constitutional damages may be justified where the breach and the remedial need are clearly constitutional in character and not adequately addressed through ordinary remedies.

Drawing these authorities together, the court stated its view that they indicate a requirement that there must be a connection between the award sought and a breach of a constitutional nature. The court regarded this as reinforced by Michael Komape and Others v Minister of Basic Education 2018 ZALMPPHC 19, where constitutional damages claimed were characterised as punitive and likely to result in over-compensation.

Applying these principles, the court held that the plaintiffs bore a duty to show a direct breach of a constitutional right resulting from the actions of the second defendant. On the court’s assessment, the plaintiffs failed to show such a constitutional breach for purposes of a separate constitutional-damages award. The court further reasoned that even if a constitutional breach were assumed, the first defendant had already agreed to compensate the plaintiffs through the settled amount for general damages before trial. In those circumstances, an additional award of constitutional damages would, in the court’s view, result in the plaintiffs being over-compensated, a result the court considered inconsistent with the approach in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security (1997) ZACC 6.

Outcome and Relief

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for an award of constitutional damages in the amount of R3 000 000.00.

The court made an order that the first defendant pay damages to the plaintiffs in the agreed amounts, namely R66 000.00 for future medical expenses and R300 000.00 for general damages, totalling R366 000.00, together with the costs of suit.

Cases Cited

Fose v Minister of Safety and Security (1997) ZACC 6.

Greater Benoni City Council v Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd 2004 (6) SA 40 (SCA).

MEC, Department of Welfare, Eastern Cape v Kate [2006] ZASCA 49; 2006 (4) SA 478 (SCA).

Michael Komape and Others v Minister of Basic Education 2018 ZALMPPHC 19.

Legislation Cited

No specific legislation was cited in the judgment.

Rules of Court Cited

No rules of court were cited in the judgment.

Held

The court held that the plaintiffs did not establish the necessary basis for an award of constitutional damages in addition to the compensatory damages already agreed. It held that constitutional damages require a demonstrated connection to a direct breach of a constitutional right, and that granting such damages in circumstances where the plaintiffs had already been compensated by agreement would result in over-compensation, contrary to the principles expressed in the cited authorities. The claim for constitutional damages was therefore dismissed, while the agreed compensatory amounts and costs were awarded.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Constitutional damages are not to be granted as an automatic supplement to common-law or agreed compensatory damages, particularly where the additional award would operate as punitive damages and would consume scarce public resources without clear preventative or deterrent justification.

An award of constitutional damages requires a demonstrable connection between the monetary award sought and a breach of a constitutional nature, and the claimant bears the burden of showing a direct breach of a constitutional right as a basis for such relief.

Where a claimant has already received, or is to receive, adequate compensatory damages for the harm suffered, an additional constitutional-damages award may be refused where it would result in over-compensation.