IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
In the matter between:
LETLHOGONOLO HENDRICK
MOSEKI
and
THE MINISTER OF POLICE
Coram: Wessels AJ
Heard: 26 February 2026
Not reportable
Case no:251/2025
Plaintiff
Defendant
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties' representatives via email. The date and time for hand-down of the
judgme nt is deemed to be 14h00 on 19 March 2026.
2
Summary: Delict -Act ion for damages - Unlawful arrest and detention -
Quantum of damages - Plaintiff a traditional leader (Headman) arrested in
presence of family and community members on suspicion of theft - Detained
for one night in inadequate conditions - Released without appearing in court
after no link to offence established.
Damages - Assessment - Factors to be considered - Deprivation of liberty
and contumelia - Impact of arrest on the dignity and standing of a traditional
authority figure-Move away from tariff-based or pro-rata approach to quantum
- Importance of the status and person of the plaintiff as emphasized in Motladile
v Minister of Police - Consistency with comparable awards in Minister of Police
v Page, Shode v Minister of Police, and Lenoke v Minister of Police.
JUDGMENT
WesselsAJ
Introduction
[l ] This is an application for defaultjudgment following a notice of bar served
upon the defendant. The plaintiff seeks damages for unlawful arrest and detention.
Facts
[2] The plaintiff testified that on the afternoon of 29 August 2024, while at his
residence in Makhubung Village, he was approached by police officers in civilian
clothing who informed him that he was a suspect in a theft case. The plaintiff
3
accompanied the police officers to another stand belonging to him, where a search
for the alleged stolen items was conducted, but yielded no results. Despite no
incriminating evidence being found, the plaintiff was arrested and taken to
Mmabatho Police Station.
[3] According to the plaintiff's evidence, the arrest took place in the presence
of his wife, his friend, and a neighbour. He was detained for one night. The
plaintiff described the cell as cold and the sleeping arrangements, a thin mattress
and a single blanket, as inadequate. The following morning, on 30 August 2024,
the plaintiff was released without having been brought before a court. Upon his
release, the South African Police Service issued the plaintiff with a notice
confirming that there was no link connecting him to the alleged offence.
[ 4] Crucially, the plaintiff testified that he was a headman in his community.
He detailed the humiliation of being treated as a criminal suspect in front of those
who look to him for leadership. The personal impact of the event was described
as a significant blow to his dignity and his standing as a traditional authority.
Assessment of damages
[5] In assessing quantum for the deprivation of personal liberty, the court must
be guided by the principles articulated in Minister of Safety and Security v Tyulu1•
In that matter, the Supreme Court of Appeal ('SCA') emphasised that the primary
purpose of an award for damages is not to enrich the aggrieved party, but to offer
a solatium for the injured feelings and the profound infringement of the
constitutional right to freedom.
1 Minister of Safety and Security v Tyulu [2009) ZASCA 55; 2009 (5) SA 85 (SCA).
4
[6] The SCA held that while there is no fixed formula for calculating such
damages, and that past awards serve only as a general guide, the determination
must always be made in light of the specific facts of the case. By balancing the
duration and conditions of the detention against the high value placed on physical
integrity in our constitutiona l era, the court ensures that the award is fair,
reasonable, and reflective of the gravity of the interference with the plaintiff's
dignity.
[7] In Mmadu v Minister of Police2, the plaintiff was arrested without a
warrant and detained for approximately 4 days. The court noted that the detention
occurred under appalling conditions in police cells that were overcrowded,
unhygienic, and lacked proper bedding, forcing the plaintiff to sleep on a thin, dirty
mattress on the floor. These conditions, coupled with the deprivation of liberty and
the resulting contumelia, significantly influenced the court's decision to award
R140,000 for the unlawful arrest and detention.
[8] The judgment in Minister of Police v Page3, a full bench appeal, involved
the respondent, who was detained for approximately one day following a
warrantless arrest on a charge of arson. During his detention at the Police Station
and subsequent holding in awaiting trial cells, the respondent was confined in a
small, foul-smelling cell with several other detainees and was forced to sleep on
the ground. The court emphasised that the respondent, who had no prior criminal
record, found the environment deeply distressing and felt his constitutional rights
to dignity and freedom were severely infringed. Although the trial court originally
awarded R70,000, the appeal court reduced the quantum to R30,000, finding the
2 Mmadu v Minister of Police (3058/2019) [2024) ZAN WHC 143 (2 1 June 2024).
3 Minister of Police v Page (CA 23 1/20 19) [202 1] ZAECG HC 22 (23 February 2021).
5
lower award strikingly disparate from comparable cases involving a single day of
detention.
[9] In Shade v Minister of Police4 the appellant was arrested and detained for
one day. The High Court, on appeal, increased the Magistrate' s initial award of
Rl 0,000 to R40,000. This adjustment was made to ensure the compensation was
fair and reasonable, aligning with established benchmarks for similar
infringements of personal liberty and contumelia while avoiding over
compensation . The court highlighted that such an award must reflect the
importance of the right to liberty in a constitutional democracy.
[ 1 0] In Lenoke v Minister of Police5, the appellant was unlawfully arrested and
detained for a period of approximately four hours on a charge of assault. During
this time, she was held in a police cell where she was subjected to a cold
environment and was provided with only a thin, dirty, and smelly sponge for
bedding, which she found distressing. The High Court, on appeal, found the
Magistrate 's initial award of Rl5,000 to be disproportio nally low, especially
considering the contumelia suffered by the appellant as a woman being arrested in
the presence of her children and the community. Consequently, the court upheld
the appeal and increased the quantum for unlawful arrest and detention to R30,000.
[11] In determining the quantum, Mr Lehabe specifically directed this Court's
attention to the judgment of the SCA in Motladile v Minister of Police6 • The
principles enunciated in Motladile are of significant importance to the present
4 Shade v Minister of P olice (CA 17 /2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 11 (3 May 2022).
5 Lenoke v Minister of Police (CIV APP MG 27/2023) r2024] ZAN WHC 277 (6 November 2024).
6 Motladile v Minister of Police (41 4/2022) [2023) ZASCA 94.
6
matter, particularly regarding the move away from a 'tariff-based' approach to the
deprivation of liberty.
[ 12] In Motladile, the SCA considered a case involving a plaintiff who had been
detained for 4 days on a charge of stock theft. The High Com1 had originally
awarded R40,000, which the SCA found to be strikingly disparate from what is
fair and reasonable. The SCA increased the award to RlS0,000.
[13] Several key principles from Motladile are directly applicable here. The
court reiterated that the primary purpose of damages for injuria is to provide solace
for the injured feelings of the plaintiff. It emphasised that the right to libe11y is a
fundamental constitutional right, and its deprivation is a serious infringement.
Furthermore, the SCA cautioned against a pro-rata approach to damages that
applies a specific daily rate. Instead, the cou11 must consider the unique
circumstances of the arrest, the duration of detention, and, most importantly, the
plaintiffs standing and person. Additionally, the SCA emphasised that the
circumstances of an an-est, especially if it is public or humiliating, should be
heavily weighed in assessing damages.
[14] This reinforces the need to consider the plaintiff's status as a headman. In
the context of a traditional community, a headman is a figure of authority, trust,
and moral standing. To be arrested on a suspicion of theft in front of his subjects
is a profound injury to his Jama and dign;tas.
[ 15] A pivotal factor in the present matter is the plaintiff's role as a tribal
headman. The an-est of a person in a position of traditional authority in the presence
of his community constitutes a heightened infringement of dignity. Such an act
undermines the plaintiffs authority as headman and invites scepticism regarding
his character among the members of his community.
7
Conclusion
[ 16] Taking into account the duration of the detention ( one night), the
conditions of the cell, and the specific status of the plaintiff as a headman, I am of
the view that an award of R35,000 is just and equitable. This reflects the
seriousness of the interference with his liberty while specifically addressing the
injury to his dignity as a leader.
[17] Regarding costs, there is no reason to depart from the general rule that
costs follow the result.
Order
[18] Resultantly, the following order is made:
1. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of R3 5,000
as damages for unlawful arrest and detention.
2. The defendant shall pay interest on the said amount at the
prescribed rate from the date of judgment to the date of final
payment.
3. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff's costs of suit on Scale A.
MWESSELS
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
Appearances
For plaintiff
Instructed by
:Mr OKKA Lehabe
:Lehabe Attorneys
:Mahikeng
8