SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this
document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
CASE NO: 1907/2017
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 21/07/2025
SIGNATURE: TE MATUMBA, AJ
In the matter between:
D[...] M[...] M[...] PLAINTIFF
and
MINISTER OF POLICE FIRST DEFENDANT
NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF SECOND DEFENDANT
PUBLIC PROSECUTION
Heard on: 30 April 2025
Delivered on: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to
the parties’ legal representatives by e -mail, and release to
SAFLII. The date for hand down is deemed to be 21 July 2025
at 16h00.
JUDGMENT
MATUMBA, AJ
Introduction
[1] This matter concerns a claim by the plaintiff, Ms. D[...] M[...] M[...], for
damages arising from her unlawful arrest and detention by members of the South
African Police Service. The merits of the claim having been settled, and liability
admitted, a court order was made to this effect on 30 April 2025.
[2] The court’s task is to determine the quantum of damages to be awarded to the
plaintiff.
Evidence
[3] The plaintiff is the only witness who testified in this matter. She stated that she
was arrested on 21 May 2014 at approximately 21h00 at her residence, house
number 1[...], Rebone, Steiloop, Limpopo. Her arrest was precipitated by her being
shot with a rubber bullet during a neighborhood protest.
[4] The police did not explain the reason for her arrest. At the time, she was not
participating in the protest but was at her home. She was not involved in any
unlawful activity.
[5] The police entered her yard, found her and her children, and proceeded to
arrest her. She was arreste d along with her school -going children, including her son
T[...], who suffers from a mental illness. The other children were undergoing school
exams at the time.
[6] Following her arrest, she was transported to Gilead Police Station, which is
situated approximately 10 kilometers from Rebone village, spending approximately 5
hours in a police van from around 21h00 until roughly 02h00 the next morning.
[7] The plaintiff stated that she was detained in an overcrowded cell with other
female detainees, with no access to proper sanitation. Conditions in the cell were
deplorable, as there was no running water in the toilet or shower, and the food
served was distasteful. She was detained until her release at approximately 11h00
on 23 May 2014, amounting to rough ly 38 hours in custody, including the 5 hours
spent transporting her in the police van as part of the detention period.
[8] The plaintiff testified that the charges against her were eventually withdrawn
after two court appearances.
Assessment
[9] Damages for unlawful detention are compensatory, aimed at redressing
emotional distress, loss of dignity, and physical discomfort. In Masiteng1, the
Supreme Court of Appeal held that damages in deprivation of liberty cases are at the
discretion of the trial court, to be exercised fairly and equitably, considering the case
merits (ex aequo et bono).
[10] The court recognises that the plaintiff su ffered emotional distress, loss of
dignity, humiliation, and physical discomfort due to her unlawful arrest and detention.
[11] The plaintiff testified that she was hit by a rubber bullet shot by police without
justification. The police did not provide e vidence explaining or justifying the shooting,
leaving the court with no option but to accept the plaintiff’s account. Based on this, I
1 Masiteng v Minister of Police [2024] ZASCA 165.
infer that the plaintiff was assaulted by the police with a rubber bullet prior to her
arrest, which compounded her suffering.
[12] In my view, the arrest of the plaintiff with her children, especially her mentally
ill son, was humiliating and damaging to her well -being, likely affecting family
relationships and stability.
[13] The plaintiff spent approximately 5 hours in the police van (a very small
confined space), which, considering the distance, constitutes an injury that supports
her claim for suffering.
[14] The conditions in the cell further worsened her suffering, with no sanitation or
proper amenities, overcrowding, and distasteful food.
[15] I agree with the plaintiff’s version that her detention period includes the period
from arrest until release. This includes the 5 -hour period of her transportation to the
police station, making the whole detention period approximately 38 hours.
[16] In Dijan2, the Supreme Court of Appeal awarded R120,000 for 72 hours of
detention. This case, decided in 2022, serves as a relevant precedent for
quantifying damages in the present matter.
[17] When considering the duration of detention, conditions endured, and suffering
experienced, as well as accounting for the inflationary effects since the Dijan case
was decided and the subsequent changes in the value of currency, a fair and just
award in the current context would be R70,000.
Costs
[18] There is no reason why costs should not follow the result on the High Court
scale. Due to the fact that the claim was straightforward and within magistrate’s court
jurisdiction; scales B and C would be disproportionate.
2 Dijan v Minister of Police [2022] ZASCA 103.
Order
[19] In light of the above, the court makes the following order:
19.1 The defendant is ordered to pay damages to the plaintiff in the
amount of R 70,000 (Seventy Thousand Rand).
19.2 Interests on the damages shall accrue at 11% per annum from
the date of this judgment until final payment.
19.3 The defendant must pay the costs of suit, at scale A.
_____________
TE. MATUMBA
ACTING JUDGE
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
LIMPOPO DIVISION
POLOKWANE
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff: Adv C Zietsman
Loubser Van Wyk Inc
E-mail: info@mweidelaw.co.za
For the First Defendant : Adv T Mahapa
State Attorney, Polokwane
E-mail: ArMassekoameng@justice.gov.za