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
>>
2016
>>
[2016] ZAGPPHC 366
|

|

Ranamani v Minister of Police (57737/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 366 (23 May 2016)

REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE
NO:57737/2012
DATE:
23 MAY 2016
In the matter between:
SOLOMON
RANAMANI
...........................................................................................................
Plaintiff
And
THE MINISTER OF
POLICE
................................................................................................
Defendant
JUDGMENT
NONYANE. AJ:
[1]
This is an action for damages arising
out of the unlawful arrest, detention and assault of the plaintiff,
Mr Solomon Ranamani.
[2]
The first claim arises out of the
unlawful arrest of the plaintiff at Zebediela on the 30 January 2011
and the subsequent unlawful
detention of the plaintiff in the police
cell until 1 February 2011.
[3]
The plaintiff’s second claim
arises out of damages he sustained as a result of being assaulted by
members of the South African
Police Service during his period of
detention.
[4]
The events giving rise to the claim as
set out in Dr Leon Fine’s expert report are that the plaintiff
went to Zebediela, Limpopo
Province, to attend his sister’s
lobola function. He then decided to go with a friend to have a beer
at a nearby tavern.
He was then arrested by police officers who
searched his car looking for weapons. They did not find any weapons.
They then took
him to the police station and detained him.
[5]
He slept in the police cells and the
next morning other police officers came and questioned him. They
assaulted him with a stick
on his buttocks and legs. The plaintiff
was thereafter taken to two shops owned by some Indian men for
identification purposes.
Both ship­owners told the police that
the plaintiff is not the person who robbed them.
[6]
The plaintiff was taken back to the
tavern with his legs tied and his car was searched again. He was then
taken to the police station
and put in a room where he was further
assaulted by the police officers. They hit him with a baton on his
back, buttocks, legs
and banged his head against the floor. He was
thereafter taken back to the police cells and kept there until he was
released.
[7]
According to the J88 medical report the
plaintiff sustained multiple bruises, abrasion and cuts of different
length and depth on
his head, back, hand and legs.
[8]
The merits of the plaintiff’s case
have become settled. The defendant conceded the merits in full and
the plaintiff is entitled
to 100% of his proven damages.
[9]
At the commencement of the trial, the
plaintiff brought an application to amend the quantum which was
opposed and after having heard
both counsel and considered the
matter, the application was granted.
[10]I have to determine the
issue of quantum based on the amended papers.
[11]The plaintiff claims an
amount of R400 000.00 for unlawful arrest and detention and an amount
of R700 000.00 for assault.
[12]To prove the nature of
injuries sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the assault, its
sequelae and the quantum to be awarded
for both special and general
damages, Counsel for the plaintiff referred me to the reports of the
following experts:
Elton Bloye (clinical
psychologist)
Dr Leon Fine (psychiatrist)
Wessel J. Wessels (industrial
psychologist)
Gretchen Basson (occupational
therapist)
Dr Frank M Peters (orthopaedic
surgeon)
Johan Potgieter (fellow of the
Actuarial Society of South Africa).
[13]The abovementioned reports
were admitted by the defendant and admitted into evidence without the
need to call individual experts.
[14]In the clinical
psychologist’s report the plaintiff described in detail how he
felt during the unlawful arrest, detention
and assault. He told the
clinical psychologist that he was very scared, confused and in pain
whilst he was being beaten. He went
on to say that the thought of how
he was beaten made his heart heavy and embarrassed him. He found the
whole event humiliating
and he experiences nightmares on a weekly
basis. He now avoids encounters with police officers and has negative
emotions such as
anger and sadness when he sees them.
[15]Gretchen Basson, the
occupational therapist, was informed by the plaintiff that it was for
the first time that he got beaten
and has, as a result of being
beaten and arrested for no apparent reason, suffered severe pain and
emotional trauma. He further
informed the occupational therapist that
the people in his community think that he was arrested as a result of
having done something
wrong and this does not sit well with him.
[16]The unlawful arrest and
detention on its own infringed on the plaintiff’s right to
liberty and dignity. Stripping him
naked was the worst humiliation
that the plaintiff had to endure.
[17]He was also kept in custody
for a further period of two nights notwithstanding the fact that the
police officers were advised
that the plaintiff is not the person who
robbed them.
[18]It is clear from what the
plaintiff reported to the clinical psychologist and the occupational
therapist that his rights to
personal liberty including his right not
to be arbitrarily arrested without a lawful cause, the right to
dignity and the right
to his reputation and not to be defamed had
been violated by the unlawful arrest and detention. Appropriate
damages should be awarded.
See Takawira v Minster of Police
2013 JOL
30
554 at par 36.
[19]The uniformed members of
the SAPS who are supposed to, amongst others, uphold the law and
individual human rights enshrined
in the Constitution of the Republic
of South Africa, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Constitution”) after stripping
the plaintiff naked proceeded to
assault him.
[20]The plaintiff has, as a
result of the assault, sustained injuries which impacted negatively
on his health.
[21]According to the
medico-legal reports, the plaintiff has, as a result of the assault,
sustained injuries with, amongst others,
the following sequelae:
Major depressive episodes;
Post traumatic stress disorder;
and
Back pain.
[22]Dr Frank M Peters, the
orthopaedic surgeon, opined that the plaintiff suffered severe pain
since the assault and has never been
pain free. The report further
states that the plaintiff will, as a result of the back pain, retire
5 years before his normal retirement
age of 65 years.
[23]The occupational therapist
during the physical assessment observed that static postures,
rotation resistance in activities and
working on a lower level
elicited mid and lower back pain. He noted that the plaintiff
presented with a marked spasm over the right
side of his lower back.
[24]The occupational therapist
opined that there is a probability that his pain may increase over
time and he will eventually no
longer have the physical ability to
perform physical labour and deferred to the orthopaedic surgeon’s
report on the prognosis
of his back symptoms and early retirement.
[25]The industrial psychologist
recommended a pre accident retirement of 65 years. The actuarial
calculation for loss of income
as a result of early retirement is R98
057.00.
[26]The clinical psychologist
diagnosed the plaintiff with major depressive episode and post
traumatic stress disorder. Dr Fine,
the psychiatrist, also diagnosed
the plaintiff with post traumatic stress disorder but went on to say
that some of the symptoms
have resolved overtime. The clinical
psychologist has noted that depression and post traumatic stress
disorder is a treatable psychological
condition and that the
plaintiff had to undergo psychotherapy and receive psychotropic
medication. The plaintiff also reported
to the industrial
psychologist that he lost his son in 2015 and he is still sad and
depressed about the loss of his son. The actuarial
calculation for
future medical treatment is an amount of R159 510.00.
[27]The court has a wide
discretion in awarding damages and as the task is not an easy one,
previous awards in comparable cases
should be taken into account but
only as guidance in assisting the court in arriving at an award which
is not substantially out
of the general accord with previous award in
broadly similar cases. Regard should also be had to all factors
considered to be relevant
in the assessment of damages. “It may
also be permissible, in an appropriate case, to test the assessment
arrived at upon
this basis by reference to the general
pattern
of previous awards in cases where the injuries and their sequelae may
have been either more serious or less than those in
the case under
consideration”. See Protea Assurance v Lamb
1971 (1) SA 530
A.
[28]Counsel for the plaintiff
contended that the plaintiff was not only detained for no apparent
reason, he was also stripped naked
and assaulted by the Police
officers. He contended that the Police officers continued to detain
and assault the plaintiff even
after they were informed by the
shop-owners that he is not the person who robbed them. He further
argued that the continued arrest
and detention of the plaintiff by
the police bordered on malice
[29]Counsel for the plaintiff
referred me to the case of Woji v Minister of Police (92/2012)
[2014]
ZASCA 108
contending that the police officers breached their public
duty not to violate the plaintiff’s right to freedom and have
to
accordingly compensate the plaintiff.
[30]He contended that a
reasonable compensation for a young men arrested and detained for no
apparent reason for 3 days and not
having been afforded an
opportunity to get legal representation would be between R150 000.00
and R200 000.00 for unlawful arrest
and detention.
[31]He further contended that
an amount between R375 000.00 to R400 000.00 would be a fair
compensation for assault inclusive of
future medical expenses and
future loss of earning capacity.
[32]Counsel for the defendant
argued that the quantum that is sought by the plaintiff is excessive
and unreasonable because no amount
of money will be sufficient to
cover the infringement of the plaintiff’s rights caused by the
defendant. He further argued
that the plaintiff should not be
compensated for early retirement as the age of 60 years is still
considered a retirement age.
[33]I do not agree with the
defendant’s counsel’s argument as retirement at age 60
years is a matter of choice. Over
and above that, the industrial
psychologist recommended a pre-accident retirement age of 65 years
and I do not have any expert
report that points to the contrary.
[34]Defendant’s counsel
referred the court to the unreported judgment of Kubushi J in Mafa
and Another v Minister of Police
and Another (21313/201, 26083/2011)
ZAGPPHC 342 (13 December 2012). The plaintiffs in the aforementioned
case claimed an amount
of R3 510 000.00 in respect of unlawful arrest
and detention. They were however awarded R200 000.00 each because the
court did
not have sufficient information required to enable it to
consider and determine the damages they claimed.
[35]In the present case the
plaintiff has, through his experts’ reports, placed before me
sufficient information to enable
me to assess and determine the
damages sustained and the quantum to be awarded.
[36]I was also referred by the
defendant’s counsel to Greenberg \/ De Beer & Another
(22261/02) [2011] ZAGPJ. The plaintiff,
in the aforementioned case,
claimed R450 000.00 for unlawful arrest and detention for a period of
6 days and was awarded R90 000.00.
[37]Counsel for the defendant
further argued that in Rudolph u The Minister of Safety and Security
2009 (5) SA 94
SCA an amount of R50 000.00 was awarded in respect of
the unlawful arrest and detention under humiliating conditions.
[38]Counsel for defendant
conveniently omitted to mention to this court that the amount awarded
was in respect of the first plaintiff’s
third claim arising
from his second unlawful arrest and detention which the court found
was for a shorter period and under conditions
which, although
unsatisfactory, were not as bad as in respect of his first claim
arising from his first unlawful arrest and detention.
[39]The claim that is almost
similar to the present case is the first plaintiff’s first
claim, where the court awarded an
amount of R100 000.00 on the basis
that the detention was under humiliating conditions and for a period
of about 4 days.
[40]In the present case, the
plaintiff was arrested and detained under humiliating conditions. He
was not allowed to call his attorney
and was stripped naked during
the assault. He was kept in custody notwithstanding the fact that the
shop-owners advised the police
officers that the plaintiff is not the
one who robbed them.
[41]Although the plaintiff in
this case spent 3 nights in custody, the humiliation he sustained was
more than the one sustained
by the plaintiff’s in Rudolph,
supra, as they were not subjected to assault, embarrassment and
humiliation of having to be
stripped naked.
[42]I have also considered the
case of Mofokeng and Another v Minister of Police (2014/A3084) [2015]
ZAGPJHC 30 (17 February 2015)
and the case of Brian Hendricks v
Minister of Safety and Security (CA&R51/2015) [2015] ZAECGHC 61
(4 June 2015) wherein the
appellant was detained for 3 days and on
appeal was awarded R100 000.00.
[44] In quantifying special
damages for future medical expenses and loss of income, I have taken
the following into consideration:
[44.1] The actuarial
calculation placed before me allowed psychotherapy fees for both the
psychologist and the psychiatrist. This
to me looks like a
duplication of the same treatment and has to be accordingly adjusted.
[47]I have also taken into
account the death of the plaintiff’s son which might have
exacerbated his condition and the fact
that some of the post
traumatic stress disorder symptoms have resolved overtime.
[48]I am, as a result of the
above allowing a contingency deduction of 15% on future medical
expenses.
[49]Having heard arguments from
both counsels for the plaintiff and the defendant, considered the
guidelines of the cases cited
above and taking all relevant factors
in assessing the quantum of both special and general damages, I deem
the following amount
as adequate compensation:
a.
Unlawful arrest and detention R 120
000.00
b.
Assault R 333 358.50
[50]It is trite that costs
should follow the cause. In this case the costs of suit are awarded
to the plaintiff including the costs
of counsel and costs of
attending to the examination and obtaining experts reports.
[51]In the result the following
order is made:
1.
Judgment is granted in favour of the
plaintiff for payment of the sum of R453 358.50 within 30 days from
the date of this order.
2.
The defendant is ordered to pay interest
on the sum of R453 358.50 at the rate of 9% from 31 days after the
date of this order to
date of payment.
3.
The defendant is ordered to pay the
plaintiff’s costs of suit including the cost of determination
of merits and the quantum
and attending o the examination and
obtaining medico legal reports.
NONYANE
AJ
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Counsel
for the Plaintiff Adv. D Mtsweni
Instructed
by Gildenhuys Malatji Inc
Counsel
for the Defendant: Adv. M Malowa
Instructed
by The State Attorney
Date
of trial 19 October 2015
Date
of Judgment 23 May 2016