Page 2
[1] The plaintiff instituted an action against the first and second defendants for
unlawful arrest and detention and for malicious prosecution against the third
and fourth defendants.
THE PLEADINGS
[2] The gist of the plaintiff’s case is that, on Thursday 12 August 2010 between
23:20 and midnight the plaintiff was returning from Zimbabwe and attended at
the Bei tbridge Border Gate. He handed an Immigration officer on the South
African side his passport. He was told to wait. He was then arrested by
members of the South African Police Service without a warrant. He was taken
to a holding cell at the border gate and was unlawfully detained and
interrogated and later told that he had an outstanding unspecified criminal
case pending against him in Johannesburg.
[3] The plaintiff advised the Police officers that there was no criminal case
pending as the only criminal case that was once laid against him was on
investigation found to be unfounded and the charges were withdrawn against
him. The Police officers however k ept the plaintiff in detention .
[4] The next morning at approximately 04:00 he was transferred to the Musina
Police Station where he was wrongfully and unlawfully detained further in the
Police holding cells.
[5] The plaintiff was kept in the Musina Police Station holding cells until he was
brought before the Musina Magistrates’ Court on Monday 16 August 2010
after 17:30 in the evening.
Page 3
[6] The plaintiff pleads in respect of his arrest and detention that the South African
Police Service acted unlawfully in three respects.
6.1 He was not as soon as possible brought to a Police Station after his
arrest, in breach of section 50(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51
of 1977 (“the CPA”).
6.2 Further, that he was not as soon as possible informed of his right to
institute bail proceedings after his arrest, in breach of section 50(1)(b)
of the CPA.
6.3 Thirdly, that he was not as soon as possible brought before a lower
court after his arrest, in breach of section 50(1)(c) of the CPA. The
latter was based on the fact that he was brought before the Musina
Magistrates’ Court long after the 48 hour period contemplated in
section 50(1)(d)(i) of the CPA had expired, and thus in breach of
section 50(1)(c) of the CPA.
[7] The plaintiff pleaded that, irrespective of the legality of his initial arrest and
detention, his detention had become unlawful due to the expiry of the 48 hour
period before he was brought to court. After the expiry of that period the
Prosecutor at the Musina Magistrates’ Court applied for a postponement of
the matter and the Magistrate postponed the proceedings and transferred the
matter to the Johannesburg Magistrates’ Court, remanding the plaintiff in
custody.
[8] The plaintiff contends that he was not advised of his right to apply for bail.
Page 4
[9] On 17 August 2010 the plaintiff was transferred to Johannesburg Central
Police Station by the SAPS.
[10] On 18 August 2010 the plaintiff was taken to the Johannesburg Magistrates’
Court by the SAPS. He was only called to appear at about 16:30. The plaintiff
was remand ed in custody to 19 August 2010 for appearance before the
Hillbrow Magistrates’ Court.
[11] The plaintiff contends that, as there was no docket, neither the Public
Prosecutor nor the Magistrate knew anything about the matter and there was
no charge sheet.
[12] On 25 August 2010 the plaintiff, after a further appearance was given bail of
R500.00 and he was released on 26 August 2010.
[13] The matter was called in the Johannesburg Magistrates’ Court on 8
September 2010, 5 October 2010 and 14 October 2010. On 14 October 2010
the matter was struck from the roll due to the absence of a criminal docket.
[14] It is contended that the third defendant had a duty to review evidence of the
prima facie commission of a criminal offence. It is contended by the plaintiff
that as there was no docket, there was no basis on which to continue with the
prosecution. As there was no prima facie case against the plaintiff, he pleaded
that his prosecution was malicious. He pleaded, in the alternative, that the
third defendant was grossly negligent.
Page 5
[15] A similar allegation is made against the Magistrate.
[16] The first defendant pleaded that there was an outstanding Warrant of Arrest
Number 34/181/90 in respect of the plaintiff. The warrant was issued when
the plaintiff failed to appear in the criminal court on 17 December 1990.
[17] The third and fourth defendants pleaded that the plaintiff had failed to appear
in the criminal court on 17 December 1990 at the Johannesburg Magistrates’
Court under case number 5/9366/90, which resulted in a warrant for his arrest
being issued.
[18] It is pleaded that the Magistrate in Musina was advised that there is a criminal
case pending against the plaintiff.
[19] The third and fourth defendants further plead that the Magistrates’ Court did
not have jurisdiction to deal with the warrant of arrest which was issued by the
Johannesburg Magistrates’ Court. It is pleaded that both the Public
Prosecutor and the Magistrate pro perly applied their minds and correctly
remanded the plaintiff in custody and transfer red the matter to the
Johannesburg Magistrates’ Court to deal with the warrant of arrest.
[20] It is admitted that there was no docket available at the Johannesburg
Magistrate’s Court on 18 August 2010 and 19 August 2010.
[21] It is pleaded that on 14 October 2010 the matter was struck from the roll due
to the absence of the case docket.
Page 6
[22] The third and fourth defendants plead that , what was placed before them, was
a warrant of arrest issued by the Johannesburg Magistrates’ Court. As they
did not have jurisdiction, the matter was transferred to Johannesburg and the
plaintiff was remanded in custody.
[23] The defendants further deny that there was a withdrawal of the criminal
proceedings or a finalisation of the criminal proceedings.
THE EVIDENCE
[24] The sole witness was the plaintiff. He testified that he was on his way to
Zimbabwe when he was arrested. This conflicts with his particulars of claim.
While it does not matter as far as his cause of action is concerned, it does
raise the fact that his recollection has been affected by the passing of 15 years
since the arrest.
[25] He recounted the events at the Beitbridge Border Post where he was arrested.
He confirmed that he was not read his rights. According to him, he was
arrested without a warrant.
[26] Having been arrested on the evening, around about midnight on 12 October
2010, he was only brought before court on the following Monday afternoon,
after hours (17:30). The Magistrate transferred the case to Hillbrow.
[27] The Magistrate was on his way out of court when he was stopped in the
passage. He went back to court to hear the plaintiff’s matter. He referred the
matter to Johannesburg and the plaintiff was collected by SAPS from
Page 7
Johannesburg and taken to Sun City prison from court. He spent the night of
18 October 20 10 in a cell.
[28] On 19 October 2010 he spent the day at court waiting for his matter to be
called, but it wasn’t. He was taken back to his cell where he spent the
weekend and the following Monday.
[29] On Tuesday, 24 October 2010 he was called by a detective in Hillbrow. He
was asked why he did not appear on 19 October 2010. He advised that he
was there, but that his name was not called. He was then given a date for 25
October 2010 to appear in court in Westgate. On that day he was given bai l
of R500.00. He contends that he was still not told by then why he had been
arrested. As he did not have bail money with him, he spen t another day in
Sun City and was only released on 26 October 2010.
[30] Thereafter, he attended court on three date s,ie at the end of September 2010,
5 October 2010 and 14 October 2010. On 14 October 2010 the matter was
struck from the roll.
[31] The plaintiff has not been charged or prosecuted with the criminal matter since
it was struck from the roll .
[32] In cross -examination a number of discrepancies were pointed out in the
plaintiff’s case. For example, he pleaded that he had urged the Police officials
in Beitbridge to make enquiries about any pending case against him. In
evidence, he stated that the Police offered to contact the Johannesburg Police
Station s. During cross -examination it became apparent that the plaintiff was
Page 8
oblivious as to why he was arrested. He was told it is about an old matter, but
his contention is that he was not told what the matter was about. He contends
that the only case against him is a matter in which the charges were
withdrawn.
[33] In cross -examination he also stated that Home Affairs had advised him that
there is a warrant when they kept his passport. Those officials were however
not the arresting officials.
[34] A charge sheet from 1990 was put to the plaintiff during evidence in cross -
examination. It is matter 5/9366/19 (State v Tshalibi). It is app arent that the
plaintiff was out on bail. While the document reflects that he was out on bail
of R400.00, the plaintiff states that he was out on free bail (i.e on his own
recognisances ). The warrant of arrest was in Afrikaans, as were the notes
made by the Magistrate. According to th ose notes the Magistrate was
satisfied that the plaintiff had been warned to appear on 17 December 1990
in Johannesburg on a charge of possession of stolen goods. As he failed to
appear, a warrant for his arrest was signed on 18 Decem ber 1990. That is the
reason why the plaintiff was arrested.
[35] If the warrant of arrest was valid, which on the face it was, then the plaintiff’s
claim that he was arrested without a warrant cannot be accepted.
[36] While the existence of a warrant was established in evidence, there was no
evidence that the warrant had been shown to the plaintiff at the time of his
arrest or that he had been provided with a copy of it.
Page 9
[37] The Magistrate’s notes indicate that the matter had been postponed to 17
December 1990 for judgment on a charge of possession of stolen goods.
[38] The plaintiff contends that the case was finished. He also says the case was
“cancelled ”.
[39] There has been no movement since 1990 to finalise the matter.
[40] The plaintiff denied that he had failed to appear. His memory is however not
trustworthy as he himself could not give any details as to when the matter was
finalised. The existence of the warrant is evidence that he did not appear on
17 December 2010.
[41] On the question as to why he would not remember these details, but
remember the arrest, he responded that he was traumatised by the arrest
andthat is why he could remember the details after 15 years.
[42] The warrant of arrest indicated that the plaintiff was to be apprehended and
taken to the court in Johannesburg which issued the warrant.
[43] The plaintiff’s contention that he attended the trial until it was finalised is not
borne out by the records. It is apparent that he did not return for judgment on
17 December 1990. The plaintiff could advance no reason as to why the
Magistrate or the Prosecutor in Musina or in Johannesburg would harbour him
any ill will or demonstrate malice as far as his prosecution is concerned.
[44] The docket indicates that he had been arrested on 25 September 1990 and
that he pleaded not guilty on 2 October 1990. There was an appearance on
Page 10
12 December 1990 where a note was made in Afrikaans that reads: “Skuldig” .
That may explain why the matter was postponed to 17 December 1990 for
sentencing.
[45] There is no note that the matter was struck from the roll or was finalised in any
other way.
[46] The accused den ies that he had been found guilty.
Legal Principles
[47] The fact of the plaintiff’s arrest and detention is common cause. The onus is
on the State to justify the arrest and detention (see: Minister of Law and
Order v Hurl ey 1986 (3) SA 568 (A) at 589 E – F.
[48] Where an accused fails to appear at a hearing, the court before which the
matter is pending may declare th at bail be provisionally cancelled and bail
money provisionally forfeited to the State and issue a warrant of arrest for the
accused (section 67(1) of the CPA).
[49] Such non -appearance without good cause constitutes an offence (section 67A
of the CPA).
[50] A person who is arrested with or without a warrant for commission of an
offence shall, as soon as possible, be brought before a Police Station, or in
Page 11
the case of an arrest by a warrant, to any other place which is expressly
mentioned in the warrant (section 50(1)(a) of the CPA).
[51] In this instance the warrant was issued by the Magistrate’s Court,
Johannesburg. That is where the accused should have been taken on arrest.
[52] A person in detention shall, as soon as reasonably possible, be informed of
his or her right to institute bail proceedings (section 50(1)(b) of the CPA).
[53] Where bail has not been granted, the accused in detention shall be brought
before a lower court “as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than 48
hours after the arrest” (section 50(1)(c) of the CPA).
[54] It the period of 48 hours expires outside ordinary court hours or on a day which
is not an ordinary court day, the accused shall be brought before a lower court
not later than the end of the first court day (section 50(1)(d)(i) of the CPA). In
this instance, the 48 hours after the arrest expired over the weekend and the
plaintiff should have been brought before a court , by not later than the end of
the court day on the following Monday. This did not occur.
[55] The evidence establishes that the plaintiff was arrested in terms of a lawful
warrant. Such warrant was however not produced, or a copy was not
produced, and he was not advised of his right to bail. Further, he was not
brought before a lower court within 48 hours as required by section 50 of the
CPA.
Page 12
[56] The effect of the aforesaid is that, by the time the plaintiff appeared before the
Magistrate after hours on Monday, 16 October , his detention was unlawful, or
had, even if the arrest w ere good, become unlawful.
[57] This is consistent with the principle that the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an
arrest does not by implication render subsequent detention lawful or unlawful.
[58] In De Klerk v Minister of Police [2019] ZACC 32 the Constitutional Court
stated the following at paragraph [62]:
“[62] The principles emerging from our jurisprudence can then be summarised
as follows. The deprivation of liberty, through arrest and detention, is per
se prima facie unlawful. Every deprivation of liberty must not only be
effected in a procedurally fair man ner but must also be substantively
justified by acceptable reasons. Since Zealand, a remand order by a
Magistrate does not necessarily render subsequent detention lawful.
What matters is whether, substantively, there was just cause for the later
deprivation of liberty. In determining whether the deprivation of liberty
pursuant to a remand order is lawful, regard can be had to the manner
in which the remand order was made.
[63] In cases like this, the liability of the police for detention post -court
appearance should be determined on an application of the principles of
legal causation, having regard to the applicable tests and policy
considerations. This may include a considera tion of whether the post -
appearance detention was lawful. It is these public policy considerations
that will serve as a measure of control to ensure that liability is not
Page 13
extended too far. The conduct of the policy after an unlawful arrest,
especially if the police acted unlawfully after the unlawful arrest of the
plaintiff, is to be evaluated and considered in determining legal
causation. In addition, every matter must b e determined on its own facts
– there is no general rule that can be applied dogmatically in order to
determine liability.”
DISCUSSION
[59] The only evidence of the arrest is that of the plaintiff. It is apparent from his
evidence that he was not shown an arrest warrant, although there was a valid
warrant for his arrest. Whilst the warrant of arrest provides objective
justification for the act of an arrest, that arrest has to be effected procedurally
in accordance with the prescripts of section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
[60] The plaintiff was not advised of his right to apply for bail. The fact that he
disputed that there was a valid warrant for his arrest required that a copy
thereof had to be shown to him, which was not done .To argue that the Act
provides for a copy of the writ being produced upon request , and that thee
was no formal request is to put form over substance.
[61] The contention that he never asked for a copy of the warrant is dispelled by
the fact that he was disputing the fact that there was a valid cause for his arrest
- that implies that there was a duty on the arresting officials to show him a
copy of the warrant of arrest , that being the justification for the depr ivation of
his liberty.
Page 14
[62] On these facts the arrest was unlawful in that it was executed in a procedurally
unlawful manner.
[63] It follows that the detention of the plaintiff until his court appearance in Musina
at 17:30 on Monday, 16 October 2010 was unlawful. Even if the arrest was
valid and if I am mistaken in the assessment of the facts, he was not brought
before court within 48 hours of arrest. He was brought before a court which
did not have jurisdiction as the warrant of arrest required him to be brought
before the court in Johannesburg. That perpetuated the unlawfulness of his
detention until he was granted bail.
[64] The detention of the plaintiff was not rendered lawful by a subsequent
remanding order by the Magistrates’ Court in Johannesburg. Had the plaintiff
been advised of his right to apply for bail, he would have done so forthwith.
The fact that he was at all material times un represented underscores the fact
that he ought to have been advised of his rights - but was not.
[65] The evidence of the plaintiff is not without criticism. I have alluded to the fact
that he contradicted himself on whether he was entering or leaving Zimbabwe.
[66] Further, the evidence establishes that he was at some stage advised of the
fact that there is a pending criminal trial against him in Johannesburg.
Although he disputed this, there was objectively a valid warrant for his arrest.
[67] His evidence that that case had been concluded is not borne out by the docket.
He ought to have appeared on 17 December 2010 - for sentencing.
Page 15
[68] However, these matters are not material in determining the validity of the
arrest and subsequent detention.
[69] On the facts of the plaintiff’s claim against the South African Police Service s,
he therefore succeeds on the claim for unlawful arrest and unlawful detention.
[70] The plaintiff’s case for malicious prosecution fails at the first hurdle.
[71] There are four requirements for a claim for malicious prosecution, the first of
which is that the prosecution was instigated maliciously. In this respect the
finger is pointed at the Magistrate and the Prosecutor in Musina. However, it
is apparent that they were not the drivers or the instigators of the proceedings.
There was a valid warrant of arrest. They at best were used as part of the
process of securing a transfer of the plaintiff from Musina to Johannesburg.
This is not sufficient to constitute the i nstigation of criminal proceedings.
There is no evidence of malicious inten t on the part of the Magistrate and the
Prosecutor. In any event, there is no cogent evidence that the prosecution
failed. It was struck from the roll due to the absence of a docket. That does
not constitute the termination of the proceedings even in the face of no further
action thereafter.
[72] The claim for malicious prosecution has therefore not been established.
[73] This brings me to the issue of costs. The plaintiff succeeds against the South
African Police Service for his unlawful arrest and detention. The Department
of Home Affairs merely notified the Police of the presence of the plaintiff at the
border post where he was arrested. There was nothing unlawful in that
Page 17
APPEARANCES :
Counsel for Applicant : Adv Nkabinde
Instructed by : Dudula Incorporated Attorneys
Counsel for First and S econd Respondent : Adv Janse Van Rensbu rg
Instructed by : State Attorney
Counsel f or Third and Fourth Respondent : M.S Mangolele
Instructed by : State Attorney