THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Case No: 827/13
Reportable

In the matter between:

MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY

APPELLANT

and

VUYOLWETHU TYOKWANA

RESPONDENT

Neutral citation:
Minister of Safety and Security v Tyokwana (827/13) [2014] ZASCA

130 (23 September 2014)
Coram:
Brand, Tshiqi, Saldulker JJA and Fourie and Mathopo AJJA
Heard:
25 August 2014
Delivered:
23 September 2014

Summary:
Delictual claim ─ Unlawful arrest, detention and malicious prosecution ─
Police aware that no evidence available upon which the respondent could be
successfully prosecuted ─ Police failed to inform prosecutor and the court of lack of
evidence ─ As a result the appellant refused bail and remanded in custody until
acquittal 22 months later ─ Detention unlawful and in breach of right to freedom in terms
of s 12(1)(a) of the Constitution ─ Orders of magistrate not rendering detention lawful ─
Appellant liable to compensate respondent for full period of detention.

ORDER

On appeal from: Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown (Sandi J sitting as court
of first instance)
The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, where
employed.
___________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________

Fourie AJA (Brand, Tshiqi, Saldulker JJA and Mathopo AJA concurring):
[1] This is an appeal against the part of the order of the Eastern Cape High
Court, Grahamstown (Sandi J), declaring the appellant liable to compensate the
respondent for such damages as he may have suffered as a consequence of his
unlawful arrest, detention and subsequent malicious prosecution by members of the
South African Police Service (the SAPS), acting within the course and scope of their
employment with the appellant. The appeal is with the leave of the court a quo.

[2] On 2 October 2007 the respondent, a 19-year old male, as well as Messrs
Hanise and Bokisa, washed motor vehicles at the Kenton-on-Sea police station as
part of their community service sentences. One of the vehicles was a police vehicle
which had been allocated to Warrant Officer Kani (Kani) of the Kenton-on-Sea
police. In the course of the afternoon, Kani arrested the respondent for the theft of
his (Kani‟s) firearm which had allegedly been stolen from the cubbyhole of Kani‟s
vehicle. The respondent denied any involvement in the theft of the firearm, but was
detained in the cells at the Kenton-on-Sea police station.

[3] On 4 October 2007 the respondent appeared in the local magistrates‟ court,
represented by an attorney. A plea of guilty was tendered on his behalf on three
counts, ie the theft of a firearm; the unlawful possession thereof and the unlawful

possession of fifteen rounds of ammunition. He was convicted and the case was
postponed to 19 October 2007 for sentence. The magistrate ordered the
respondent‟s further detention. On 19 October 2007 the respondent‟s attorney
withdrew and the case was postponed to 5 November 2007 at the request of the
respondent‟s new attorney, to enable him to obtain instructions. The magistrate
ordered the respondent‟s further detention.

[4] On 5 November 2007 the respondent‟s new attorney applied, in terms of
s 113(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (the CPA), for the correction of the
respondent‟s plea of guilty to one of not guilty, on the basis that „beskuldigde beweer
hy was beïnvloed om skuldig te pleit en omdat hy bang was‟. The magistrate
recorded a plea of not guilty, postponed the case to 6 November 2007, and ordered
the respondent‟s further detention. On the latter date a further postponement was
ordered, to 19 December 2007, with the respondent to remain in custody.

[5] On 19 December 2007 the magistrate refused the respondent‟s application for
bail and the matter was remanded for trial with the respondent to remain in
detention. It is not evident what the cause of the subsequent delay was, but the trial
only commenced on 20 July 2009, when the respondent was acquitted on all
charges.

[6] On 1 October 2009 the respondent issued summons against the appellant for
the payment of damages suffered as a consequence of the events of 2 October 2007
and their aftermath. The action was defended and it was ordered that the issue of
liability be determined first. In the event, the trial proceeded before Sandi J. The
heads of damages comprising the respondent‟s claim are set out hereunder.

Wrongful and unlawful assault
[7] The nature of the assault perpetrated on the respondent by different members
of the SAPS at Kenton-on-Sea is detailed in the particulars of claim. In its plea the
appellant denied any assault on the respondent. However, at the commencement of

the trial, the appellant formally admitted that:
„On 2 October 2007 and at the Kenton-on-Sea police station warrant officer Kani hit the
plaintiff on his head thereby causing the injuries on his head and the bruising on his
shoulders as listed in the J88 that Sister Rijkers prepared on 11 October 2007.‟

[8] In her J88 medical report Sister Rijkers, who examined the respondent on
2 October 2007, noted three lacerations on the right side of his head, one on the left
side of the head, four on the forehead and two at the back of the head. All of these
lacerations were sutured. In addition, she noted bruising on both shoulders in the
post-scapula area, as well as a slight swelling of the left knee.

[9] I should add that, in his evidence in the high court, Kani explained that he hit
the respondent with a broomstick on the head, while the respondent testified that
Kani, inter alia, used a knobkierie to assault him. In view of the appellant‟s admission
that the respondent had been assaulted it is not necessary, for present purposes, to
dwell on this issue. I will in due course in evaluating the evidence, refer to the nature
and extent of the assault perpetrated on the respondent.

Wrongful and unlawful arrest
[10] It is common cause that Kani, acting within the course and scope of his
employment with the appellant, arrested the respondent on 2 October 2007, without
a warrant of arrest. As justification for the arrest the appellant relies on s 40(1)(b) of
the CPA, which provides that a peace officer, such as Kani, may without warrant
arrest any person whom he reasonably suspects of having committed an offence
referred to in Schedule 1 of the CPA. The crime of theft is one of the offences listed
in Schedule 1. To succeed with this defence the appellant is required to establish
that Kani entertained a suspicion based on reasonable grounds that the respondent
had committed a Schedule 1 offence.

[11] Suspicion, by definition, means absence of certainty. As was explained in
Minister of Law and Order v Kader 1991 (1) SA 41 (A) at 50H, it „is a state of
conjecture or surmise where proof is lacking. . . . Suspicion arises at or near the
starting point of an investigation of which the obtaining of prima facie proof is the
end‟.

Wrongful and unlawful detention
[12] If the arrest of the respondent was unlawful it would follow that his subsequent
detention was also unlawful. However, the appellant submitted that such unlawful
detention would, in any event, have ceased on 4 October 2007, when the magistrate
ordered the respondent‟s further detention. Alternatively, the appellant submitted
that, if it is found that the respondent‟s detention remained unlawful even after
4 October 2007, such unlawful detention ceased on 19 December 2007 when the
magistrate dismissed the respondent‟s application for bail.

Malicious prosecution
[13] It is common cause that Kani, acting within the course and scope of his
employment with the appellant, instigated the criminal proceedings against the
respondent. The prosecution failed upon the acquittal of the respondent on 20 July
2009. To succeed with the claim for malicious prosecution, the respondent has to
prove the absence of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution and that
Kani instigated the legal process with malice or animo iniuriandi. See Minister for
Justice and Constitutional Development v Moleko 2009 (2) SACR 585 (SCA) para 8.

[14] With regard to the absence of reasonable and probable cause for the
prosecution, the following was said in Beckenstrater v Rottcher and Theunissen
1955 (1) SA 129 (A) at 136A-B:
„When it is alleged that a defendant had no reasonable cause for prosecuting, I understand
this to mean that he did not have such information as would lead a reasonable man to
conclude that the plaintiff had probably been guilty of the offence charged; if, despite his
having such information, the defendant is shown not to have believed in the plaintiff‟s guilt, a
subjective element comes into play and disproves the existence, for the defendant, of
reasonable and probable cause.‟

[15] In Relyant Trading (Pty) Ltd v Shongwe and Another [2007] 1 ALL SA 375
(SCA) para 5, this court held that, „although the expression “malice” is used, it
means, in the context of the actio iniuriarum, animus iniuriandi‟. In this regard animus
iniuriandi means that the defendant, while being aware of the absence of reasonable
grounds for the prosecution, directs his or her will to prosecuting the plaintiff. If no

reasonable grounds exist, but the defendant honestly believes either that the plaintiff
is guilty, or that reasonable grounds are present, the second element of animus
iniuriandi, namely consciousness of wrongfulness, will be lacking. See J Neethling,
J M Potgieter and P J Visser Neethling‟s Law of Personality 2ed (2005) at 125 and
Moaki v Reckitt and Colman (Africa) Ltd and Another 1968 (3) SA 98 (A) at 105B-C.

[16] In Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development v Moleko, supra, at
para 64, this court said the following with regard to the element of animus iniuriandi:
„The defendant must thus not only have been aware of what he or she was doing in
instituting or initiating the prosecution, but must at least have foreseen the possibility that he
or she was acting wrongfully, but nevertheless continued to act, reckless as to the
consequences of his or her conduct (dolus eventualis).‟

Discussion
[17] In his order, Sandi J declared the appellant liable to pay the respondent‟s
damages „in respect of assault, unlawful arrest, detention and malicious prosecution‟.
As I have earlier indicated, the appeal is not directed at the order in respect of the
assault perpetrated on the respondent. With regard to the detention of the
respondent, it is not clear from the order whether the learned judge a quo held the
appellant liable for the entire period of the respondent‟s detention. However, the
court a quo subsequently clarified this aspect when granting the appellant leave to
appeal, inter alia, on the ground whether or not the appellant is liable for the
respondent‟s „entire period of detention‟.

[18] At the outset, it is necessary to emphasise the finding of the court a quo that
Kani, who was the only witness to testify on behalf of the appellant, was a poor
witness whose evidence falls to be rejected. A reading of the record illustrates the
unreliability of Kani as a witness. In fact, the submission on behalf of the respondent
that he was a serial liar, is fully justified. Not only was his evidence riddled with
untruths and improbabilities, but he persisted in changing his ground and when
confronted with material discrepancies in his evidence, he habitually resorted to the
feeble excuse of having been „under stress‟. Also, the appellant has not attacked the
credibility of the respondent and his witnesses, especially where their evidence
differs from or is contradicted by Kani.

[19] It is not necessary to analyse Kani‟s evidence in any great detail to illustrate
his unreliability, but the following instances may be highlighted:
(a) In his police statement Kani denied having assaulted the respondent. This denial
was repeated in the appellant‟s pleadings. However, when faced with objective
evidence of Kani‟s vicious assault upon the respondent, it was, at the onset of the
trial, admitted that the respondent had been assaulted.
(b) Kani belatedly admitted to having inflicted the injuries reflected in the J88 medical
report of Sister Rijkers, but in evidence denied any further assault upon the
respondent. However, during cross-examination, he conceded that, in addition to the
ten sutured lacerations identified by Sister Rijkers, the respondent had sustained at
least three other lacerations which had to be sutured, as well as an abrasion under
the left eye.
(c) In his evidence in the magistrates‟ court, Kani testified that the respondent had
told him (Kani) that he had been injured in an assault in the township, while the
injuries to the respondent‟s head and face were occasioned by Kani himself. To this
should be added the evidence of the respondent that Kani had instructed him to give
this false version in his evidence to the magistrate.
(d) Kani‟s evidence as to the absence of extensive bloodstains on the respondent
and his clothing, is gainsaid by the undisputed evidence of the respondent‟s parents
and the witness Fogarty.
(e) Kani‟s version as to the events which gave rise to the charge which he preferred
against the respondent, is so improbable that it can safely be rejected out of hand.
He also changed and adapted this version whenever it suited him during his
evidence. In particular, it is difficult to extract a coherent version of Kani‟s regarding
the chronology and timing of the events.
(f) On Kani‟s version he locked and activated the alarm of his vehicle when he went
into his office, yet the respondent is alleged to have removed Kani‟s firearm from the
cubbyhole of the locked vehicle with the alarm inexplicably and improbably failing to
go off. However, when testifying in the magistrates‟ court, Kani said that he had left
the vehicle open to enable the inside to be cleaned.
(g) Kani‟s version of the alleged pointing out of the firearm by the respondent is not
only seriously unconvincing, but contradicted by the statements obtained from
Hanise and Bokisa. In his written statement and in the official occurrence book, Kani

recorded that his firearm was found „under the seat‟ in the toilet, but according to his
testimony in the high court, it was found under the outlet pipe leading to the wall of
the toilet.

[20] It follows from the aforegoing, that there is barely any aspect of Kani‟s
evidence that remains unscathed, with the result that it is incapable of credence and
was correctly rejected by the court a quo.

[21] In his evidence the respondent denied all knowledge of the alleged theft of
Kani‟s firearm. He described the vicious assault upon him by Kani and other
members of the police, in an attempt to coerce him to admit to the theft of the
firearm. In his warning statement he expressly stated „ek het nie die vuurwapen
gesteel nie‟.

[22] When testifying, the respondent gave a graphic account of the prolonged
assault to which he was subjected by Kani and at least three other members of the
SAPS stationed at Kenton-on-Sea. He was dealt numerous blows to the head with
Kani‟s knobkierie; he was forced to the ground on two occasions with the policemen
then stomping and standing on his chest and neck; he was hit with a police baton; he
was kicked in the area of his genitals and his testicles were forcefully squeezed; he
was hit with a fist which caused a wound to his eye; his eyes were sprayed with
pepper spray; he was hosed down with cold water; he was forced into a scalding hot
shower; boiling water was poured over his feet, and so the sad tale continued. There
is no reason to doubt this evidence of the respondent, as Kani‟s admission that he
had dealt the respondent 14 blows to the head and the evidence of the respondent‟s
parents, serve as corroboration of the vicious assault perpetrated on him.

[23] The respondent was detained in the police cells, with Kani continuing to put
pressure on him to admit to the theft of the firearm. On the morning of his first
appearance in the magistrates‟ court, Kani convinced the respondent that he should
plead guilty, by promising the respondent that he would then let him go free. Kani,
however, reneged on this undertaking. Kani accompanied the respondent to the
magistrates‟ court where he (Kani), ironically, was on duty as the court orderly.

[24] Apart from the forced admission of guilt extracted from the respondent by
viciously assaulting him, the appellant relies on information obtained by Kani from
Hanise and Bokisa, prior to the respondent‟s arrest, that they had seen the
respondent removing the firearm from Kani‟s vehicle. Hanise deposed to an affidavit
to that effect at 16h20 on 2 October 2007, while Bokisa deposed to a similar affidavit
the next day. However, the evidence strongly suggests that the police (and in
particular Kani) obtained this evidence from Hanise and Bokisa by forceful means.

[25] It is recorded in the occurrence book kept at the Kenton-On-Sea police
station, that at 17h35 on 2 October 2007 the respondent and Hanise were booked
into the cells while „both have various wounds on body and head, sustained before
detention‟. There is no suggestion in the evidence that the respondent or Hanise had
sustained any injuries prior to their detention on 2 October 2007. On the contrary, the
overwhelming probability is that they sustained their respective injuries during the
course of the afternoon of 2 October 2007, at the Kenton-On-Sea police station, after
Kani had established that his firearm was missing.

[26] The answer as to the cause of the injuries sustained by the respondent and
Hanise, was provided by Hanise in his evidence at the trial in the magistrates‟ court,
namely:
„Hulle (the police) het ons aanhoudelik aangerand, vir die hele dag, want hulle vra vir ons
waar die vuurwapen is. . . . Ons sê vir hulle dat ons nie kennis dra van die vuurwapen nie.‟
This evidence was confirmed by the respondent in his testimony in the high court, as
well as the contents of two subsequent affidavits deposed to by Hanise and Bokisa,
in which they confirmed that their injuries were caused by the police assaulting them,
in their quest to find someone to blame for the disappearance of Kani‟s firearm.

[27] I should add that, in his evidence in the magistrates‟ court, Hanise denied
seeing the respondent steal the firearm. Furthermore, Hanise and Bokisa have
subsequently sued the appellant for the payment of damages suffered as a
consequence of injuries sustained by virtue of being assaulted by members of the
Kenton-On-Sea police. Therefore, the overwhelming probability is that the
information and affidavits initially obtained from Hanise and Bokisa, blaming the

respondent for the theft of Kani‟s firearm, were extracted from them by forceful
means by Kani and his fellow police officers.

[28] At all material times, Kani was aware that Hanise and Bokisa had been
subjected to assaults in order to obtain their co-operation to provide statements
falsely implicating the respondent. He was also aware that any admission or pointing
out by the respondent was only brought about by the continuous brutal assaults
perpetrated on him. In these circumstances, the court a quo correctly concluded that
the appellant had failed to establish that Kani did, at the time of the arrest of the
respondent, entertain a suspicion based on reasonable grounds that the respondent
had committed a Schedule 1 offence. Therefore, the arrest was unlawful.

[29] In instigating the prosecution of the respondent, Kani was fully aware of the
absence of any credible evidence linking the respondent to the theft of the firearm.
Yet, he submitted a false statement denying any assault and duress on the
respondent, while failing to inform the presiding magistrate that the respondent had
been subjected to a brutal and sustained assault by the police and that his visible
injuries were in consequence of this assault. In fact, he persuaded the respondent to
provide a false version as to the origin of his injuries to the magistrate. In these
circumstances, Kani was not only aware of the absence of reasonable grounds for
the prosecution, but could not have had any honest belief that the respondent was
guilty. Yet, he wrongfully persisted with and actively encouraged the prosecution of
the respondent, reckless as to the consequences of his conduct.

[30] In the court a quo, Kani conceded that, when Hanise and Bokisa deposed to
their later affidavits on 9 October 2007, it was clear that their initial statements,
implicating the respondent, were false. He conceded that they were the only two
witnesses who could implicate the respondent in the criminal case against him for
the theft of the firearm, yet he took no steps to advise the prosecutor that, in the
circumstances, there was no point in pursuing the prosecution against the
respondent. In view thereof, his instigation of the respondent‟s prosecution and his
perpetuation thereof, was malicious.

[31] This brings me to the issue of the respondent‟s detention. The authority of the
police to detain a person is inherent in the power of arrest. Therefore, if the arrest is
unlawful, the resultant detention is similarly unlawful. What remains to be considered
is whether or not the appellant ought to have been held liable for the full period of the
respondent‟s detention, from 2 October 2007 to 20 July 2009.

[32] The appellant contends that the unlawful detention of the respondent ceased
when the magistrate ordered his further detention. In this regard the appellant relies
on the judgment in Isaacs v Minister van Wet en Orde 1996 (1) SACR 314 (A), in
which this court found that a detainee‟s continued detention pursuant to an order of
court remanding him in custody in terms of s 50(1) of the CPA, was lawful
notwithstanding the fact that it had followed upon his unlawful arrest.

[33] In the court a quo, Sandi J relied on the decision in Mthimkhulu & another v
Minister of Law and Order 1993 (3) SA 432 (E), where Nepgen J held as follows at
438C-F:
„In any event, I do not see how the mere fact that the further detention of the plaintiffs
occurred pursuant to an order made by the magistrate in terms of section 50(1) of Act 51 of
1977 can render such detention lawful where the arrest, which resulted in such detention
being ordered, was unlawful. The prior arrest of a person is a prerequisite to the provisions
of the subsection coming into effect. If such arrest is unlawful, it is not a valid arrest.
Whatever occurs pursuant to such arrest is therefore, in my view, invalid and unlawful.‟
However, in Isaacs at 323I-J, this court held that the dictum in Mthimkhulu at 438C-F
was wrongly decided.

[34] In his judgment, Sandi J acknowledged that he was aware of the judgment in
Isaacs, but added „I think that this judgment has been overtaken by the Constitution
and other judgments‟. The learned judge did not elaborate on this view. As submitted
on behalf of the appellant, the judgment in Isaacs has not been overruled by the
Constitutional Court or this court.

[35] In Isaacs the appellant was wrongfully arrested and he contended, relying on
the above dictum in Mthimkhulu, that, whatever occurs pursuant to an unlawful
arrest, is invalid and unlawful. Therefore, the argument went, the subsequent

detention of the appellant by virtue of an order of court remanding him in custody in
terms of s 50(1) of the CPA, was similarly unlawful.

[36] E M Grosskopf JA, writing for the court in Isaacs, defined the crucial issue
which had to be decided, as follows at 321g:
„Die wesentlike vraag vir beslissing is dus of die appellant se onregmatige inhegtenisneming
die gevolg gehad het dat sy aanhouding ingevolge die landdros se bevel van 22 Februarie
ook onregmatig was.‟
At 322g the learned judge of appeal summarised the submission on behalf of the
appellant, as follows:
„Sy betoog is „n jurisdiksionele een. Dit lui soos volg. Artikel 50(1) geld alleen ten opsigte van
iemand wat “in hegtenis geneem” is. Hierdeur word bedoel n regsgeldige inhegtenisneming.
Waar daar geen geldige inhegtenisneming was nie, kan art 50(1) nie toegepas word nie. Die
verdere aanhouding en alles wat daarop volg is dan net so ongeldig as die oorspronklike
gepoogde inhegtenisneming.‟

[37] The learned judge of appeal further held as follows at 323h-i:
„Ek meen dus dat waar art 50(1) praat van iemand wat “in hegtenis geneem” is, dit nie
beperk is tot „n regmatige inhegtenisneming nie. Dit sluit iemand in wat, in „n gepoogde
uitoefening van arrestasie-bevoegdhede, onder die arresteerde[r] se beheer gebring is. Dit
volg dat die aanval op die landdros se regsbevoegdheid in die onderhawige geval
ongegrond is en dat die bevel vir die verdere aanhouding van die appellant binne sy
regsbevoegdheid geval het en geldig was. Die blote feit dat die appellant se
inhegtenisneming onregmatig was, kan nie daaraan afdoen nie.‟

[38] To summarise, what was decided in Isaacs, is that the prior lawful arrest of a
person is not a prerequisite to the provisions of s 50(1) of the CPA coming into
effect. Put differently, it was held that the fact that the person may have been
arrested unlawfully, does not preclude him or her from being remanded lawfully in
terms of s 50(1) of the CPA. However, what was not held in Isaacs, is that an
arrested person‟s continued detention by virtue of an order of court remanding him or
her in custody in terms of s 50(1) of the CPA, will automatically render such
continued detention lawful. This was not an issue that the court in Isaacs was called
upon to adjudicate.

[39] I believe that the question whether the orders of the magistrate remanding the
respondent in custody and refusing him bail, rendered his subsequent detention
lawful or not, has to be answered with regard to the peculiar facts of this case. The
salient facts are:
(a)
Kani knew that there was simply no evidence upon which the respondent
could be successfully prosecuted. He was aware that the initial statements of Bokisa
and Hanise were obtained under duress and were false. He was also aware that the
respondent, who had been subjected to a serious and sustained assault at the hands
of the police, did not tell the truth to the magistrate, but, at Kani‟s insistence,
misinformed the court as to the theft of the firearm and the origin of his injuries.
(b)
The investigating officer, Warrant Officer Muller, was similarly aware of the
subsequent statements of Bokisa and Hanise, recanting their original version, as well
as the fact that the respondent had laid a charge of assault against Kani. He failed to
bring this crucial evidence to the attention of the prosecutor or the magistrate.
(c)
Kani and Warrant Officer Muller recommended that bail for the respondent be
opposed, by completing a bail information form in which material untruths were
recorded regarding the question whether the respondent would stand his trial or
constitute a flight risk.
(d)
Due to Kani and Muller‟s failure to inform the prosecutor and/or the magistrate
of the true facts, the latter were not given a proper opportunity to apply their minds to
the question whether or not the respondent should be remanded in custody or be
granted bail. Had the prosecutor and the magistrate been apprised of all the relevant
facts and circumstances, it is inconceivable that the prosecutor would have permitted
the prosecution to proceed, or that the magistrate would have refused bail.
(e)
The prosecution of the respondent and its perpetuation, particularly at the
instance of Kani, was malicious and aimed at depriving the respondent of his liberty.
It constituted a wrongful and improper use of the court process to deprive the
respondent of his liberty.

[40] It has often been stressed by our courts, that the duty of a policeman who has
arrested a person for the purpose of having him or her prosecuted, is to give a fair
and honest statement of the relevant facts to the prosecutor, leaving it to the latter to
decide whether to prosecute or not. See Prinsloo and another v Newman 1975 (1)
SA 481 (A) at 492G and 495A and Minister for Justice and Constitutional

Development v Moleko, supra, at para 11. In Carmichele v Minister of Safety and
Security and another 2001 (4) SA 938 (CC) para 63, it was held that the police has a
clear duty to bring to the attention of the prosecutor any factors known to them
relevant to the exercise by the magistrate of his discretion to admit a detainee to bail.

[41] It brooks no argument that Kani, as well as Muller, failed dismally to give a fair
and honest statement of the relevant facts to the prosecutor and to bring all the
relevant circumstances under the attention of the magistrate. On the contrary, they
wilfully distorted the truth, thereby misleading the prosecutor and the magistrate with
the result that the respondent was remanded in detention and refused bail, and
remained in custody until his acquittal on 20 July 2009.

[42] In considering the respondent‟s delictual claim for damages pursuant to his
wrongful detention, it is clear that his constitutional right to freedom and security of
the person, as enshrined in s 12 of the Constitution, was unjustifiably and
unreasonably violated by the employees of the appellant, and in particular by the
malicious conduct of Kani. Section 12(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees everyone
the right to freedom and security of his or her person, including the right not to be
deprived of his or her freedom without just cause.

[43] In Zealand v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development  2008 (4) SA
458 (CC), a claim for delictual damages for wrongful detention was considered and it
was held that the detention of the plaintiff for the entire period of his incarceration
was unlawful, in that s 12(1)(a) of the Constitution was unjustifiably and
unreasonably violated. In Zealand the continued detention of the plaintiff also
followed upon court orders remanding him in custody. At para 52 the constitutional
court concluded as follows:
„I can think of no reason why an unjustifiable breach of s 12(1)(a) of the Constitution should
not be sufficient to establish unlawfulness for the purposes of the applicant‟s delictual action
of unlawful or wrongful detention.‟

[44] In my view, the respondent has shown that the circumstances in which the
appellant‟s employees instigated and persisted with his prosecution, amounted to an
unjustifiable breach of s 12(1)(a) of the Constitution. This is sufficient to establish

delictual liability on the part of the appellant for the full period of the respondent‟s
detention from 2 October 2007 to 20 July 2009.

[45] It follows that the appeal falls to be dismissed. With regard to the costs of the
appeal, this is a matter which justified the employment of two counsel.

[46] The following order is made:
The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, where
employed.

___________________
P B Fourie
Acting Judge of Appeal

APPEARANCES:

For the appellant:
G H Bloem SC

Instructed by:

The State Attorney, Port Elizabeth

The State Attorney, Bloemfontein

For the respondent:
I Smuts SC (with him G Dugmore)

Instructed by:

N N Dullabh & Co, Grahamstown

Symington & De Kok, Bloemfontein

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

FROM

The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE

23 September 2014

STATUS

Immediate

Please note that the media summary is for the benefit of the media and does not form part of
the judgment.

Minister of Safety and Security v Tyokwana
(827/13) [2014] ZASCA 130 (23 September 2014)

MEDIA STATEMENT

Today the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) furnished its reasons for dismissing the appeal
by the appellant, the Minister of Safety and Security, and upholding an order of the Eastern
Cape High Court, Grahamstown.

The issue before the SCA was whether the appellant was liable to compensate the
respondent for such damages as he may have suffered as a consequence of his unlawful
arrest, detention and subsequent malicious prosecution by members of the South African
Police Service (the SAPS), acting within the course and scope of their employment with the
appellant.

On 2 October 2007, the respondent – a 19 year old male – was assigned to the washing of
police motor vehicles as part of his community service sentence at the Kenton-on-Sea
Police Station. One of the vehicles had been allocated to Warrant Officer Kani (Kani). Kani
subsequently alleged that his firearm had been stolen from the cubbyhole of his vehicle and
arising from this, Kani arrested the respondent, without a warrant of arrest, on a charge of
the theft of the firearm. The respondent denied any involvement in the theft but was
nevertheless detained in the cells at the police station.

The matter was then postponed from time to time with the respondent remaining in custody
and on 19 December 2007 the magistrate refused the respondent’s application for bail. The
matter was remanded for trial with the respondent to remain in detention. There was a
further delay and the trial only commenced on 20 July 2009, when the respondent was
acquitted on all charges.

The respondent then, on 1 October 2009, issued summons against the appellant for the
payment of damages suffered as a consequence of the events of 2 October 2007 and their

aftermath. Due to the weight of the objective evidence, the appellant formally admitted, after
its initial denial of liability, that Warrant Officer Kani had viciously assaulted the respondent.

The SCA in considering the respondent’s delictual claim for damages, stated that it was
clear that the respondent’s constitutional right to freedom and security of the person, as
enshrined in s 12(1)(a) of the Constitution, was unjustifiably and unreasonably violated by
the members of the SAPS, and in particular by the malicious conduct of Kani. The SCA held
further that the respondent had shown that the circumstances in which the police had
arrested him and instigated and persisted with his prosecution, rendered the appellant
delictually liable to the respondent for his wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and
unlawful detention for the full period from 2 October 2007 to 20 July 2009.

--- ends ---