Page 2 of 15
proportions, which must , most unfortunately, be paid for – from an already
strained, public purse.
2. This judgment intends to achieve four purposes. First to compensate the plaintiff
for his claim. Second, to impress on the SAPS officers the importance of their
role within the landscape of our constitutional democracy. Third, to encourage
the South African public to record police interactions with members of the public,
so as to stem the floodgates of abuse that individuals suffer at the hands of the
police. By recording police engagements with the public, as was done in this
case, some circumspection may result. Fourth, to direct the Minister to instruct
IPID to conduct a full -scale invest igation into the events that transpired a t
Meadowlands Police Station, in relation to the incidents set out herein.
The evidence
3. The plaintiff, Mr. Ramothopo Ratshwene (“Ratshwene”) aged 42, instituted an
action for damages, against the Minister of Police (“the defendant”), arising out
of, what he claims to be, his unlawful and wrongful torture, assault, arrest and
detention, deprivation of freedom without just cause, physical trauma and
malicious prosecution, suffered on 4 March 2019, at the hands of members of
SAPS Meadowlands, while on duty. The action is opposed.
4. On 4 March 2019 , at approximately 22 h00, Ratshwene, an Uber driver,
accompanied by a friend, Mr. Mahlori Maluleke (“Maluleke”) were enroute to
Zone 2 in Meadowlands, Soweto . They came across an accident scene
involving two vehicles, a Polo and a Toyota Quest . They stopped , and
proceeded to offer assistance to the occupants of the vehicles.
5. One of the occupants in the Polo, a female, sustained injuries from the accident
and requested Ratshwene to accompany her to a nearby police station, in order
to get assistance. The police station w as less than 100 metres from the scene
of the accident. Ratshwene left his friend at the scene and dr ove the female
of the accident. Ratshwene left his friend at the scene and dr ove the female
occupant (accident victim) to the police station.
Page 3 of 15
6. When they arrived at the police station, the female accident victim walked ahead
of Ratshwene, and entered the station. A female police officer was upset with
the accident victim who entered the police station, holding a can containing
liquor. In an attempt to de-escalate the situation , Ratshwene intervened. He
explained that the lady was involved in an accident and asked her to wait
outside. Realising that the female police officer was upset, he and the lady went
back to the accident scene.
7. When they returned to the accident sc ene, they found JMPD (Johannesburg
Metropolitan Pol ice Department) officers as well as a S APS vehicle. Shortly
thereafter, the JMPD vehicle left. Back at the sc ene, Ratshwene spoke to his
friend and informed him that they ( Ratshwene and the lady) d id not get hel p
from the pol ice station. He enquired why, and Ratshwene explained that the
female police officer was angry and wouldn’t help them. The lady who
Ratshwene accompanied went back to the people she was travelling with , in
the Polo. A few SAPS officers were standing close by.
8. Ratshwene proceeded to tell his friend about a robbery that happened at KFC,
at the Engen garage, and that the pol ice did not help. He explained that he
reported the robbery to the police, but they failed to go to the scene. He then
uttered the words – “some police are useless”.
9. One of t he po lice officers overheard what Ratshwene told his friend. The
policeman (later identified as Tshabuse), aggressively approached Ratshwene
instructing him to repeat what he told his f riend. Ratshwene repeated that
“some police are useless” advising that he was making reference to a previous
robbery incident. Tshabuse told Ratshwene that ‘he was talking shit’. A heated
argument ensued between Ratshwene and Tshabuse arising from Ratshwene’s
statement that “some police are useless”. Tshabuse and Ratshwene swore and
insulted one another.
insulted one another.
10. Ratshwene tried to reason with Tshabuse , while trying to get into his car .
Tshabuse, did not relent, he dragged Ratshwene from his car, alleging that he
is refusing lawful arrest, which he denied. Additional police arrived, Ratshwene
Page 4 of 15
was, held by his private parts, overpowered, manhandled, cuffed and forced
into the police van by Tshabuse and other s. He pleaded with the officers, who
was handling him, not to strangle him.
11. Maluleke, recorded the incidents of the manner in which the police forced
Ratshwene into the back of the police van, on his mobile telephone.
12. Upon arrival at the police station, the abuse continued. Ratshwene who
remained handcuffed, was taken by Tshabuse to a passage behind the charge
office. Tshabuse proceeded to lock the burglar door separating the passage and
the charge office, and instructed Ratshwene to repeat what he had said at the
scene. Ratshwene explained what he meant when he said, “some police are
useless”.
13. This comment awoke the fury in Ts habuse, he became more aggressive and
said that he will now teach Ratshwene a good lesson. He started punching and
kicking Ratshwene laying helpless and handcuffed on the floor. What is tragic,
harrowing, appalling, devastating, and heartbreaking about this incident, is the
fact that the assault on Ratshwene continued in full view of the officers at the
charge office. Nobody lifted a finger to come to Ratshwene’s aid.
14. A police officer stationed at the front desk of the charge office, who witnessed
Tshabuse assaulting Ratshwene, said that he (Ratshwene) and other foreigners
are law abiding while in Zimbabwe, but break the law when in South Africa. To
add to Ratshwene’s dehumanisation, the police officer who made the comments
about Zimbabweans, handed Tshabuse an electric tazer , which he used on
Ratshwene.
15. To Ratshwene’s relief, Tshabuse stopped the assault and dragged him to a cell
and left. Later on, paramedics arrived. They examined Ratshwene and informed
the police that he was badly i njured and should immediately be taken to a
hospital for further examination and medical treatment.
Page 5 of 15
16. The police advised that Ratshwene was under arrest, and the station does not
have enough manpower to escort and guard him, should he be hospitali sed.
The paramedics decided to leave Ratshwene at the police station.
17. Ratshwene recalled hearing one of the police officer s (a lo nesome voice)
informing the paramedics , that he called paramedics to attend to Ratshwene,
as they were aware of the state of his injuries from the assault, and had pleaded
with Tshabuse to stop the assault.
18. During the early hours of the morning on 5 March 2019 (between 0 5h00 and
06h00) Tshabuse returned. He told Ratshwene that he will be taken to court that
same morning. Tshabuse did nothing to help the plaintiff with his injuries.
Instead, he left Ratshwene at the police station, after he charged him and made
him sign an acknowledgement of his constitutional rights as an arrested person.
Ratshwene was not read his constitutional rights when Tshabuse brought him
to the police station the previous evening.
19. On 5 March 2019 , Ratshwene was taken to court , battered and bleeding ,
charged with “assaulting the police and refusing lawful arrest”. He was released
on bail.
20. Immediately after court, he consulted a p rivate doctor at PrideMed that same
day. The next day he went to Bheki Mlangeni clinic, due to persistent pains on
his face, teeth, wrist, face and back. The pictures taken of Ratshwene depicted
him in blood soiled clothes.
21. Ratshwene was unable to work as an Uber driver for a few weeks after the
assault and lost income as he could not drive while in that state. The vehicle he
used was returned after 5 weeks, but he unfortunately had to give up Uber
driving, as he could no longer sit for long periods, due to back pains. He lost
income of approximately R13,000 for a period of 5 weeks.
22. On 2 August 20 19, the charges against Ratshwene were withdrawn, after a
period of 5 months of attending court.
Page 6 of 15
23. Ratshwene laid a formal complaint of assault, wrongful arrest and detention,
malicious prosecution, deprivation of freedom without just cause and physical
trauma as a result of the conduct of the members of SAPS while on duty with
IPID. The matter was last heard at the Orlando police station during February
2025 and continues. Tshabuse had in the interim resigned from SAPS.
24. The defendant sought to introduce a statement issued by Captain Phalane
Sithole, from Meadowlands SAPS. The basis for seeking such inclusion was on
the grounds that Captain Phalane passed away, and his statement confirms
that he affected Ratshwene’ s arrest. Phalane explained in his statement, that
when he arrived at the scene of the accident on 4 March 20 19, he was busy
helping the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident. A female person and
an African male (Ratshwene) arrived, assaulted the police and poured beer on
Phalane. He was then charged for inter fering and obstructing the police.
Because Ratshwene was fighting (in terms of the statement), backup was called
to come and assist. Ratshwene was thereafter detained at the Meadowlands
police station, where he was informed about his constitutional rights . Having
considered the application, I admitted the hearsay evidence in terms of section
3(1)(c)(v) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, 45 of 1998.
25. I have considered the evidence of Phalane which, quite apart from the fact that
the statement cannot be challenged by way of c ross-examination, I have
disregarded in li ght of the following . The video footage presented at the trial
shows how Ratshwene was forced into the police van. None of the recordings
showed an incident where Ratshwene assaulted police officers or poured beer
on them. Ratshwene testified that there was an altercation between him and
Tshabuse, triggered by the statement “some police are useless”. That evidence
was corroborated by an eyewitness Maluleke. Moreover, in the common cause
was corroborated by an eyewitness Maluleke. Moreover, in the common cause
facts recorded by the defendant ’s counsel , she confirms that , there was no
assault at the scene and during the arrest.
26. The defendant did not call any witnesses.
Page 7 of 15
Analysis of the evidence and arguments
27. Ratshwene’s claim is based on delict (an actionable wro ng). Delict has five
elements or requirements that a plaintiff must satisfy, namely:
27.1. the commission or omission of an act (actus reus);
27.2. which is unlawful or wrongful (wrongfulness);
27.3. committed negligently or with a particular intent (culpa or fault);
27.4. resulting in or causes the harm (causation);
27.5. and the suffering of injury, loss or damage (harm).
28. A delict encompasses the commission of wrongful and blameworthy conduct by
an individual, resulting in demonstrable harm to another individual, the causal
nexus of which remains proximate.1
29. Before I address these elements, I wish to emphasise the importance of the role
played by SAPS in the South African landscape.
30. SAPS forms an indispensable component of our constitutional democracy,
deriving its mandate from Chapter 11 of the Constitution. 2 Its members give
effect to the objects of SAPS, and are required to prevent, combat and
investigate crime, to maintain public order, to protect and secure the inhabitants
of the Republic and their property, and to uphold and enforce the law.
31. Members of SAPS are naturally required to perform their duties within the
confines of the law, and to do so without fear or favour. They are to uphold and
safeguard the fundamental rights of every person as guaranteed in the
1 Oppelt v Head: Health, Department of Health, Western 2016 (1) SA 325 (CC) at para 34.
2 Chapter 11 of the Constitution (2008) s. 205. Police service
1. The national police service must be structured to function in the national, provincial and, where
appropriate, local spheres of government.
2. National legislation must establish the powers and functions of the police service and must enable
the police service to discharge its responsibilities effectively, taking into account the requirements of
the provinces.
the provinces.
3. The objects of the police service are to prevent, combat and investigate crime, to maintain public
order, to protect and secure the inhabitants of the Republic and their property, and to uphold and
enforce the law.
Page 8 of 15
Constitution. The public should, especially when in the presence of the police,
feel safe – knowing that their fundamental rights (as guaranteed in our
constitution) will be protected.
32. It is disheartening, as this case convincingly demonstrates, to encounter
situations where some members of SAPS fail to live up to the high honour that
our Constitution expects from them, treat members of the public with indignity,
abuse their position and role when engaging with the public, disgraces the hard-
fought constitutional values they are required to uphold, dishonours the badge
and reign with rampant impunity.
33. On 4 and 5 March 2019, Ratshwene came face-to-face with that vulgarity, which
left him severely assaulted by the very individuals who ought to have jealously
guarded his safety.
34. The question facing this court , as correctly phrased by the Ratshwene’s
counsel, is who must bear the responsibility for the unlawful and wrongful
conduct of the members of SAPS, more particularly for the damages suffered
by Ratshwene. Ratshwene contends that the defendant should be liable as
claimed in terms of the amended particulars of claim, in that, the defendant
failed to provide any good reason and / or basis why Ratshwene was unlawfully
and wrongfully tortured, assaulted, arrested and detained, deprived of freedom
without just cause, physically traumatised and subjected to malicious
prosecution.
35. In order to succeed in his claim, Ratshwene is required to prove the various
elements of his delictual claim, namely, the wrongful acts as manifested in the
alleged assault, wrongful torture, arrested and detention, deprivation of freedom
without just cause and physical trauma. The evidence presented by Ratshwene,
in respect of the various wrongful acts that he was subjected to, quite apart from
the fact that the defendant did not lead any ev idence, other than the admitted
hearsay evidence, was overwhelming. The first tw o elements of the delictual
hearsay evidence, was overwhelming. The first tw o elements of the delictual
claim, have been satisfactorily met. Over and above the evidence presented by
Ratshwene and his witness, I had the opportunity to observe him closely during
Page 9 of 15
his evidence. He was cogent, consistent, answered questions without hesitation
and was on the whole, a very impressive witness.
36. There is simply no lawful basis on which it can be found that the treatment that
Ratshwene was subjected to by SAPS members, was justified. It was
deplorable.
37. The r epeated and sustained assaults, and the manner in which they were
perpetrated on him, point singularly to the c onclusion that it was done
intentionally. Thabsue was offended. H is anger gave rise to the relentless
assault of a helpless civilian, in the presence of other police officers. The words
of St. Augustine, when reflecting on the abuse that Ratshwene was subjected
to, rings true:
"Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it;
and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a
sin than to encourage them."
38. The harm and loss suffered by Ratshwene is directly attributed to being
unlawfully and wrongfully tortured, assaulted, arrested and detained, deprived
of freedom without just cause, physically traumatised and being subjected to
malicious prosecution.
39. Our Constitution3 “enshrines the right to freedom and security of the person,
including the right not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just
cause.”4
40. In Thandani v Minister of Law and Order, it was held that:
“The liberty of the individual is one of the fundamental rights of a man in a
free society which should be jealously guarded at all times and there is a
3 The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
4 Zealand v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and another 2008 (4) SA 458 (CC) at
para 24.
Page 10 of 15
duty on our courts to preserve this right against infringement ”. 5 (Own
emphasis)
41. In instances such as in this case, where the harm by the members of SAPS
entails a transgression of personal interests due to deliberate actions, the
aggrieved party must initiate the actio iniuriarum (action for non -pecuniary
damages) to seek redress for the endured non-pecuniary detriment.6
42. In De Klerk v Minister of Police, the court held that:
“A claim under the actio iniuriarum for unlawful arrest and detention has
specific requirements: the plaintiff must establish that their liberty has been
interfered with;
(a) the plaintiff must establish that this interference occurred intentionally;
(b) the deprivation of liberty must be wrongful, with the onus falling on the
defendant to show why it is not; and
(c) the plaintiff must establish that the conduct of the defendant must have
caused, both legally and factually, the harm for which compensation is
sought.”7
43. In this matter the defendant could not gainsay the evidence of Ratshwene that
he was assaulted by a SAPS member. Moreover, counsel for Ratshwene points
out, that in its pleadings, the defendant admitted the assault. And a party stands
or falls by the ir pleadings. In terms of the particulars of claim, Ratshwene
alleged that he was physically and emotionally abused while in police custody ,
and while in handcuffs. 8 The defendant in the plea admitted that the plaintiff
was physically and emotionally abused while in police custody , and while
handcuffed.9 It is also uncontested that Ratshwene was arrested and detained,
and that the criminal prosecution against him was withdrawn. The question
whether such an arrest and detention was lawful , must be answered, on the
strength of ev idence, in Ratshwene’s favour. His arrest and detention was
unlawful.
5 Thandani v Minister of Law and Order 1991 (1) SA 702 (E) at 707B ; and recently confirmed by
Constitutional Court in De Klerk v Minister of Police 2021 (4) SA 585 (CC) at para 13.
6 De Klerk v Minister of Police 2021 (4) SA 585 (CC) at para 13.
7 Ibid at para 14.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
Page 11 of 15
44. This court has a wide discretion i n granting compensation in respect of both
general damages, and damages for the various wrongs that Ratshwene was
subjected to.
45. In Rahim v The Minister of Home Affairs 10 the Court held, as follows on the
question of deprivation:
“The deprivation of liberty is indeed a serious matter. In case of non -
patrimonial loss where damages are claimed the extent of damages cannot
be assessed with mathematical precision. In such cases the exercise of a
reasonable discretion by the court and broad general considerations play a
decisive role in the process of quantification. In cases involving deprivation
of liberty the amount of satisfaction is calculated by the Court ex aequo et
bono. Inter alia the following factors are relevant (i) (ii) (iii ) circumstances
under which deprivation of liberty took place; the conduct of the defendants;
and the nature and the duration of the deprivation:”
46. Similarly, in Ferdinand v The Minister of Police the Court held:
‘‘In deprivation of liberty the amount of damages is in the discretion of the
Court. Factors which play a role are the circumstances under which the
deprivation of liberty took place; the presence of absence of improper motive
or malice on the part of the D efendant; the duration and nature of the
deprivation of liberty; the status; standing; age; health and disability of the
Plaintiff; the extent of the publicity given to the deprivation of liberty; the
presence or absence of an apology or satisfactory explanation of the events
by the Defendant; and awards in previous comparable cases.’11
47. In Latha and another v Minister of Police and others the court held that:
“While I consider the Constitution enshrines the right to freedom and security
of the person, including the right not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or
without just cause, as well as the founding value of freedom, in my view,
without just cause, as well as the founding value of freedom, in my view,
courts should be careful not to overemphasise the right in order to punish a
guilty party unduly. A delicate balance must be struck between the rights of
an aggrieved party on the one hand and the guilty party on the other, in order
to arrive at an assessment which is fair and r easonable in the
circumstances.”12
10 2015 (4) SA 433 SCA at para 27
11 Ferdinand v The Minster of Police [2018] ZALMPPHC 58 (7 March 2018).
12 Latha and another v Minister of Police and others 2019 (1) SACR 328 (KZP) at para 8.
Page 12 of 15
48. In Minister of Safety and Security v Tyulu 13 the Court in dealing wi th the
assessment of general damages said:
“ In the assessment of damages for unlawful arrest and detention, it is
important to bear in mind that the purpose is not to enrich the aggrieved party
but to offer him or her some much -needed solatium for his or her injured
feelings. It is therefore crucial that serious attempts be made to ensure that
the damages awarded are commensurate with the injury inflicted. However,
our courts should be astute to ensure that the awards they make for such
infractions reflect the importance of the right to personal liberty and the
seriousness with which any arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty is viewed
in our law. I readily concede that it is impossible to dete rmine an award of
damages for this kind of injuria with any kind of mathematical accuracy.
Although it is always helpful to have regard to awards made in previous
cases to serve as a guide, such an approach if slavishly followed can prove
to be treacherous…”
49. In order to compute the total amount for general damages to be awarded , I do
not intend to consider the incidents in isolation, nor wou ld it be practical to
separate the assaults from the arrest , as correctly argued by Ratshwene’s
counsel. To award a specific amount for compensation of the assaults and, an
additional amount for compensation of the arrest and detention, will detract from
the holistic view of damages suffered by Ratshwene, as a result of the
defendant's [SAPS] employees’ actions.
50. There are no reasonable grounds upon which the members of SAPS (Tshabuse
in particular) assaulted, arrested and detained Retswane. The comment made
by the Resweane, whilst displeasing to the police as a whole, should not have
attracted the sort of disdain and disapproval, that resulted in the perilous assault
that Restwane was subjected to.
51. In Thulagano Edward Mokomele vs the Minister of Police the court, commenting
51. In Thulagano Edward Mokomele vs the Minister of Police the court, commenting
on the duty of the police to act with restraint, said:14
“where the facts are similar to this case, FMM Snyman J aptly stated that
members of the SAPS are tasked with the duty to protect and serve the
13 2009(5) SA 85 (SCA) at para 26
14 Unreported Judgment, Case No 1/2018, North West Division, Mahikeng.
Page 13 of 15
community members, and there's no excuse for excessive force, and
assault, by a member of the SAPS towards a member of the public.”15
52. In Xaba and Another v Minister of Police 16, the Court clearly alive to the issue
of police brutality, as evinced in this type of litigation and the burden it brings to
bear on the tax payers, said that:
Police brutality has also been bemoaned and berated by our Courts. Most
court rolls are clocked up and inundated with these type of matters (unlawful
arrest, detention and / or assault by police officers) against the Minister of
Police. Surely, something needs to be done, as it does not only prejudice the
parties affected but also courts and other litigants. These matters eat into the
limited resources allocated to courts, which must be shared amongst other
litigants who approach courts for justice. Also concerning is that, taxpayers
have to bear the ever increasing fiscal brunt for the unscrupulous police
officers incompetency and gross misconduct as the monetary orders given
in these matters are paid from the public purse. This inevitably burdens the
taxpayer. (Own emphasis)
53. In the matter before me, as pointed out above, Ratshwene was indeed
unlawfully and wrongfully assaulted, arrested, and detained, deprived of his
freedom without just cause, suffered physical trauma, and was maliciously
prosecuted as a result of the conduct of the members of SAPS while on duty.
54. This court is indebted to Mr. Maluleke who filmed the police in their dealing with
Ratshwene. It is often (as seen in a number of cases, here and abroad) the
conduct of concerned third party bystanders who, by recording the police,
ensures the promotion of accountability and respect for the rule of law, as long
as in making such a recording the third party does not inter fere with the
execution of the police’s duties. In a recent decision of this court, Twala J, in
Jacobs v Minister of Police and Others17 held, in relation to an incident where a
Jacobs v Minister of Police and Others17 held, in relation to an incident where a
private citizen recorded the conduct of JMPD officials, that:
15 Ibid at para 39
16 [2023] ZANWHC 154 (31 August 2023) para 48
17 [2025] ZAGPJHC 722 (12 June 2025) para 32; See also: 27-CR-20-12646: State vs. Derek Chauvin
Page 14 of 15
I am of the considered view therefore that the arrest of the plaintiff without a
warrant was unjustified and unlawful since there was no offence committed
by the plaintiff in the presence of the arresting officer nor did the plaintiff
interfere with the po lice officers in the execution of their duties. I hold the
view that citizens are entitled to ask questions and are entitled to
explanations from the law enforcement officers in respect of their conduct
and that cannot be regarded as interference with the execution of their lawful
duties.
55. The defendant’s counsel, sought to downplay the period that Rastwene was
held in custody (relatively brief) , but overlooks the unassailable evidence of his
repeated assaults, and the pain and suffering he endured, at the hands of the
persons who ought to have protected him.
56. The conduct of SAPS members was contrary to their constitutional mandate.
57. In the result, I make the following order.
Order
1. The defendant is ordered to pay 100% of the plaintiff’s damages, for his unlawful
arrest and detention , contumelia, deprivation of freedom , p hysical trauma ,
malicious prosecution and general damages, in the amount of R1, 750 000.00
(One million, seven hundred and fifty thousand rand).
2. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff an amount of R 65,000.00 for loss
of earnings.
3. The defe ndant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s co st of suit on the scale as
between attorney and client. Counsel costs shall be paid on Scale C.
4. The payments due to the plaintiff shall be paid to his attorneys of record, within
30 (thirty) court days of this order.