THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
REPORTABLE

Case No: 1037/13
In the matter between:

THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY
First Appellant
THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Second Appellant
INSPECTOR LEGANO PHOSHOKO
Third Appellant

and

JEREMIA JANSE VAN DER WALT
First Respondent

ANDRIES DANIEL VAN WYK
Second Respondent

Neutral citation:
Minister of Safety and Security v Van der Walt (1037/13) [2014]
ZASCA 174 (19 November 2014)
Coram:
Mpati P, Tshiqi, Theron, Swain JJA, and Mocumie AJA
Heard:
09 September 2014
Delivered:
19 November 2014
Summary:  Delict – unlawful detention – vicarious liability – Minister of Safety and
Security liable for negligent conduct of a police officer – magistrate not

liable in delict for negligent conduct while performing judicial function –
Minister of Justice consequently not vicariously liable for the negligent
conduct of magistrate – malice – magistrates only liable personally for
malicious conduct – malicious conduct not proved and magistrate not
sued personally for alleged malicious conduct.

ORDER
On appeal from South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg (Van Der Merwe AJ
sitting as court of first instance):

The appeal by the first appellant is upheld in part.

1.1  The order of the high court in respect of the first appellant is set aside
and substituted as follows:
‗(a)  The first defendant is ordered to make payment to the first plaintiff in an
amount of R120 000.
(b)
The first defendant is ordered to make payment to the second plaintiff in
an amount of R120 000.
(c)  The first defendant is ordered to pay interest on the amounts in (a) and
(b) of the order at the rate of 15.5 per cent per annum from the date of
demand to the date of payment.
(d)   The first defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiffs‘ costs of suit together
with interest thereon at the prescribed rate of 15.5 per cent per annum from
14 days after taxation to date of payment. Such costs are to include the costs
of two counsel where employed.‘

2. The first appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal including the costs
consequent upon employment of two counsel where employed.

3. The appeal by the second appellant is upheld. The order of the High Court is set
aside and each party is ordered to pay their own costs in respect of the second
appellant‘s appeal.

JUDGMENT

Tshiqi JA (Mpati P, Theron and Swain JJA, and Mocumie AJA): concurring

[1] This appeal flows from the arrest of the two respondents and their detention
from the afternoon of 26 May 2004 to the morning of 1 June 2004, when they were
ultimately released on bail. The arrest and detention took place at the Brackendowns
Police Station, Alberton.  The respondents were there in response to a telephone call
made by the branch commander to the second respondent (‗Van Wyk‘) on 25 May
2004 informing him that a warrant had been issued for his arrest and that of the first
respondent (‗Van der Walt‘). When they arrived at the police station the branch
commander referred them to the third appellant (‗Phoshoko‘), a detective inspector,
who was the investigating officer in the case. Phoshoko confirmed that there was a
warrant for their arrest and showed them two dockets, which he allowed them to
read in his office.

[2] The complaints in both dockets stemmed from a sale agreement concluded
between Van Wyk and one Kanti James Mochitele (‗Mochitele‘) in terms of which the
former purchased a fixed property (‘the disputed property‘) from the latter. Van Wyk
had taken occupation of the disputed property. Mochitele apparently purported to
cancel the sale agreement but Van Wyk disputed the validity of the cancellation.
What followed was a series of criminal and civil disputes between them.

[3] The first docket pertained to an alleged theft of a toilet which allegedly
occurred on 29 November 2003 at the disputed property which was still occupied by
Van Wyk and his family. On 28 November 2003, Mochitele, accompanied by a group
of approximately fifteen people in mini busses and a big truck, arrived at the

premises without notifying Van Wyk, to conduct what turned out to be ancestral
celebrations. Nothing untoward happened during the celebrations but by the
following day a hired portable toilet, left at the premises overnight by Mochitele, had
disappeared. He reported it stolen at the Brackendowns police station. In his initial
statement to the police Mochitele did not identify any suspect. However, on 3
December 2003, he identified Van Wyk as a suspect. As a result of that information
the case docket, which had initially been endorsed ‗ongespoor‘, was re–opened and
assigned to Phoshoko for further investigation. That incident gave rise to a charge of
theft against the respondents but no warrant of arrest was issued in relation to that
incident.

[4] The warrant that was issued arose from the complaints contained in the
second docket which related to a separate incident that allegedly occurred on 7
December 2003, at a house in which Mochitele and his family were residing at the
time. Earlier that day, Mochitele visited the disputed property and, without consulting
Van Wyk, dropped off goods comprising of tyres, machinery and drums at the
property and left.  Van Wyk was angered by Mochitele‘s conduct and arranged with
Van der Walt, who owned a bakkie, to load the goods onto his bakkie. They then
went and dumped the goods at the property occupied by Mochitele. During that
process an altercation ensued between Van Wyk and Van der Walt on the one hand,
and Mochitele and his family on the other hand. There are different versions of what
occurred during the incident but as a result of the altercation Mochitele, his wife and
brother laid charges of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, two charges of
unlawful possession of firearm and a charge of pointing a firearm against Van Wyk
and Van der Walt.

[5] After the respondents had inspected the dockets, Phoshoko charged and
arrested them in terms of the warrants. He detained them in the police cells and later
transported them in a police van to the holding cells of the Alberton Magistrate‘s
Court. Later that afternoon they briefly appeared before a magistrate and were
remanded in custody. The charge sheet placed before the magistrate during that
appearance reflected that Van Wyk was facing a charge of assault which allegedly

occurred on 7 December 2003 and a charge of theft which allegedly occurred on a
different date, (29 November 2003). Van der Walt only faced a charge of pointing a
firearm that allegedly occurred on 7 December 2003.

[6] The respondents testified that what occurred in court during their first
appearance before they were remanded in custody was unusual and took them by
surprise. After their case was called, the magistrate adjourned the proceedings
abruptly and left the courtroom followed by the prosecutor. They saw the magistrate
talking to the prosecutor for a while outside the court. The magistrate then came
back into court followed by the prosecutor and wrote something on the papers before
her. She then informed them that one of the charges they were facing was armed
robbery, a schedule 6 offence, which required them to bring a formal bail application.
It is uncontroverted that the charge of armed robbery was not reflected in the charge
sheet placed before the magistrate, but was reflected in a form titled: ‗Annexure ―A‖ -
Bail proceedings in terms of Section 60 of Act 51 of 1977‘, which was also placed
before the magistrate during that first appearance. The form was, according to the
Ms Edith Zinn (‗Zinn‘) who was the prosecutor at all times during the respondents‘
appearances, normally utilised by magistrates in the Alberton Magistrate‘s Court as a
check-list to guide them during bail proceedings. It is common cause that the form
was indeed altered. A perusal of it shows that the third charge: ‗possession of an
unlicensed firearm‘, which was initially written there, and which appeared in the
charge sheet, was scratched out and replaced with a charge of armed robbery. The
alteration is initialled and a signature appears at bottom of the form.

[7] Zinn testified that she did not know who made the alteration nor did she know
who signed the form. The respondents testified that they thought it was the
magistrate because of the discussion that took place between her and Zinn during
the adjournment, shortly before she informed them that they were facing a charge of
armed robbery. According to Van Wyk, they tried on two occasions to explain to the
magistrate that there was no substance to this charge and that the charges of
assault and theft that he, Van Wyk, was facing arose from incidents that occurred on
different dates and that Van der Walt was only facing a charge of pointing a firearm.

The magistrate, however, would not listen to him and there was no intervention by
either Zinn or Phoshoko. Instead, the magistrate said they should discuss the issue
with the senior prosecutor who, however, was not in court at that time and therefore
could not assist them. Zinn testified that she did not have any recollection of the
adjournment nor the discussion she was alleged to have had with the magistrate.
Her evidence was mainly generic and not helpful in clarifying what occurred in court
during that first appearance by the respondents. Phoshoko also testified. He simply
denied that an adjournment took place but shed no light on the course of events
relayed by the respondents. Both he and Zinn, however, agreed that the charge of
armed robbery should not have been written on Annexure ‗A‘. The magistrate was
not called to testify.

[8] After their appearance in court the respondents instructed an attorney, Mr
Culhane, to arrange for a bail application on their behalf. On 27 May 2004 Culhane
attempted to arrange a bail hearing but did not succeed to do so and the
respondents were not brought before court. On 28 May 2004 Culhane succeeded in
ensuring that they were brought before court. On that day Phoshoko was not in court
but Zinn was present. Culhane testified that during the appearance on 28 May 2004
he made a fervent representation to the magistrate that there was no basis for the
charge of armed robbery. He described the exchange between him and the
magistrate as follows:
‗Now I can remember very clearly on 28 May explaining to the magistrate that this is not a
Schedule 6 offence, explaining to her that these are two incidents which took place on two
separate days and together they do not constitute a Schedule 6 offence. M‘ Lord, I wish to
make this very clear because I can remember on the day that I in fact afterwards reflected
on the fact that I had never addressed a magistrate in my entire life as I could say sternfully
as I did on that day. In fact I remember that at one point I said to the magistrate, ―Do you not
understand the point I am making to you?‖ I never addressed a magistrate or a judge like
that, but I was frustrated at the fact that she simply would not hear my argument that this
was not a Schedule 6 offence that I ended up uttering those words and that is also not
recorded here madam.‘

Regrettably bail was still refused. On 1 June 2004 the respondents again appeared
before court. On this occasion their application for bail was unopposed and bail was
set at an amount of R5 000 each. They managed to pay the amount and were
released the same day.

[9] Aggrieved by their arrest and detention from 26 May 2004 until their release
on bail on 1 June 2004, the respondents instituted action against Mochitele, the
Minister of Safety and Security, the Minister of Justice and Phoshoko in his personal
capacity. The basis of the claim against Phoshoko was that he had a legal duty, as
the investigating officer in the case, to place all relevant information before the
magistrate but had negligently failed in that duty. As a result of that failure the
magistrate refused to grant bail to the respondents during their first appearance and
their further appearances on 27 and 28 May 2004. The Minister of Safety and
Security was sued on the basis that as Phoshoko‘s employer, he was vicariously
liable for his employee‘s wrongful conduct. As against the Minister of Justice, it was
alleged that Zinn, who was also present in court at all material times, also failed, like
Phoshoko, to place such relevant information before the magistrate. Had they
performed their legal duties, as required, the magistrate would probably have
released the respondents on bail. The factual basis for the claim against both
ministers was that Phoshoko and Zinn, who were at all times present in court during
the first appearance, failed to inform the magistrate during that appearance, and also
did nothing after that appearance, to clarify to the magistrate that there was no basis
for the charge of armed robbery. And that had they done so, there would have been
no basis for the magistrate to say that the respondents were facing a schedule 6
offence and the respondents would probably have been released on bail.

[10]  Regarding the conduct of the magistrate, it was alleged that she had made the
amendments in Annexure ‗A‘, that in doing so she acted maliciously and that it was
as a result of the alteration, which reflected a schedule 6 offence that the
respondents were denied bail. It was also alleged that the error was brought to the
attention of the magistrate by the respondents during their first appearance and by
their attorney on 28 May 2004, but that she negligently failed to apply her mind to it.

Despite the allegation that the magistrate was malicious, she was not sued in her
personal capacity. The respondents, however, sued the Minister of Justice on the
basis that he was vicariously liable for the malicious, alternatively, negligent conduct
of the magistrate. Mochitele was also sued on the basis that he had laid false
charges against the respondents and that it was as a result of those charges that
they were arrested and detained.

[11]  The court a quo (Van der Merwe AJ) held that the detention of the
respondents was unlawful. It held Mochitele liable in his personal capacity and
awarded damages against him. Mochitele is not pursuing an appeal against the
order. Regarding the claim arising from the alleged wrongful conduct of the
prosecutor, the high court found that the Minister of Justice ‗cannot be responsible
for decisions by the National Prosecuting Authority…‘. This finding is not challenged
by the respondents on appeal. Regarding the conduct of the magistrate, the high
court found that it was the magistrate who had interfered maliciously and
intentionally in the erroneous formulation of the charge of armed robbery. And
pertaining to the liability of the Minister of Justice for the wrongful conduct of the
magistrate the high court stated (para 52):
‗Although magistrates function independently and impartially (see Van Rooyen v The State
2002 (5) SA 246 (CC)), that does not detract from the fact that they are appointed by and
employed by the Minister of Justice… In carrying out their functions independently and
impartially, they act within the course and scope of their appointment and in accordance with
the basis on which they were appointed. It follows that the Minister of Justice remains in my
view, as in the past, vicariously liable for the conduct of magistrates acting within the course
and scope of their employment…‘.

In the end the court made an order directing the Minister of Justice, the Minister of
Safety and Security and Phoshoko to make payment jointly and severally to each of
the respondents in an  amount of R250 000, plus interest at the rate of 15,5 % per
annum from date of demand to date of payment. This appeal is with the leave of that
court. Phoshoko was not represented on appeal before us.
[12]  The issues that arise for determination in this appeal are:

(a)
Whether the high court‘s decision that the detention of the respondents was
unlawful was correct;

(b)
Whether the high court‘s decision in finding the Minister of Safety and Security
liable for Phoshoko‘s negligent conduct should be upheld;

(c)
Whether the Minister of Justice is vicariously liable for wrongful conducts of
magistrates committed while discharging judicial functions.

[13]  Before dealing with these issues it is necessary to deal with the personal
circumstances of the respondents at the time of their arrest, for it is uncontroverted
that, but for the charge of armed robbery that was inserted in Annexure ‗A‘, the
respondents were in all probability eligible for release on bail. Both respondents were
in the employ of Imperial Group as risk managers and had before then been in the
employ of the South African Police Services ‗SAPS‘ for respective periods of 14 and
16 years. At the time of their resignation they both held the rank of captain. Their
functions at Imperial entailed investigation of criminal conduct such as theft, armed
robberies and truck hijackings. In the course of their duties they were required to
liaise with members of the SAPS in order to track and recover stolen property and
apprehend possible suspects. They had in the past worked hand in hand with some
members of the SAPS from the Alberton Police Station, including Phoshoko. Van der
Walt was well known to Phoshoko as a former colleague in the SAPS and also at the
time of their arrest as an employee of Imperial.

Unlawful Detention
[14] There was no conceivable reason for the refusal by the magistrate to release
the respondents on bail. They remained in custody because of the groundless
charge of armed robbery inserted in Annexure ‗A‘ and the collective negligence of
Phoshoko, Zinn and the magistrate. It follows that their detention for the whole period
was unlawful.

The claim against the Minister of Safety and Security
[15] Phoshoko did not deny that he was present in court during the respondents‘
first court appearance. As an investigating officer it can be inferred that he knew the
contents of the docket. It can also be inferred that, as he was present in court during
that appearance, he heard the magistrate informing the respondents that there was
an additional charge of armed robbery. He failed to ensure that the correct
information was placed before the magistrate that there was no basis for this charge
and thus failed to do what was expected of a reasonable investigating officer in his
position.1 He could have done so through Zinn who was present in court. The fact
that the magistrate ignored the respondents when they tried to reason with her did
not relieve Phoshoko of his duty as an investigating officer to do so. After the
adjournment on 26 May 2004 he again adopted a supine attitude. A reasonable
police officer would have followed up immediately after the first appearance and
thereafter done whatever was reasonably necessary to rectify the situation, including
clarifying the position with Zinn, or the head prosecutor, or the magistrate. Had he
made an effort after the first appearance to keep abreast of developments in the
matter, he probably would have been aware that the respondents were scheduled to
appear in court for a bail application on 27 and 28 May, and ensured that he was
present to rectify the error. For all those reasons Phoshoko was negligent and his
negligence caused the prolonged detention of the respondents after their first
appearance on the 26 May to 1 June 2004. It follows that the high court‘s finding of
liability against the Minister of Safety and Security must stand.

The claim against the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
[16] In the light of the fact that there is no cross-appeal by the respondents against
the finding that the Minister of Justice cannot be held liable for the negligent conduct
of the prosecutor, what remains is the question whether the Minister is liable for the
magistrate‘s refusal to release the respondents on bail.

1 Minister of Safety and Security & another v Carmichele 2004 (3) SA 305 (SCA) paras 49-50.

[17]  In the main the respondent‘s claim arising out of the magistrate‘s conduct was
that she maliciously altered the charges to include the charge of armed robbery. It
was further alleged that she negligently failed to establish what the correct charges
were and ignored all attempts by the respondents and their attorney to clarify the
issue.

Malice
[18] Was it proved that it was the magistrate who made the alteration to Annexure
―A‖? If the answer to that question is in the affirmative there can be no doubt that
malice has been established for it is common cause that there was no basis for the
alteration. The contention that it was the magistrate who made the alteration is
deduced from what the respondents perceived to be unusual conduct between the
magistrate and Zinn during the adjournment. Although the magistrate did not testify
so as to dispute the evidence of the respondents, and Zinn did not have any specific
recollection of what happened during the respondents‘ court appearance, the
problem with the evidence of the respondents is that it does not shed light on what
the magistrate and Zinn discussed during the adjournment, because they could not
hear what was being said. Even if it is accepted that the magistrate wrote something
after speaking to the prosecutor it cannot be inferred from the respondents‘ evidence
that she was making the controversial alteration because the respondents could not
see what she was writing and on which document. It follows that the decision of the
high court that the magistrate interfered maliciously to alter the charges to include
the charge of armed robbery cannot stand.

Negligence
[19] A finding that the magistrate did not act maliciously does not mean that
negligence has not been established on the part of the magistrate. Her negligence
stems from the fact that when the error was raised, she ignored it. On 26 May 2004,
when the respondents explained to her that there was no basis for the charge, she
could have asked Zinn to respond or give an explanation. She could also have
adjourned and instructed the senior prosecutor to attend court to give an

explanation. Instead, she told the respondents (knowing that they were in detention
and could not do so) to take it up with the senior prosecutor. When the issue was
again raised by Culhane during the next court appearance she simply ignored him in
spite of what he described as a passionate plea to her to apply herself to the issue.
The information Culhane gave to her was in the charge sheet that was placed before
her. She could easily have checked the charge sheet or raised pertinent questions
with Zinn. In ignoring the respondents and their attorney the magistrate was grossly
negligent and it was as a result of her failure to pay attention to the concerns raised
with her that led her to order the continued detention of the respondents.

Vicarious liability of the Minister of Justice
[20] Can the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development be held
vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct of the magistrate? In holding the Minister
of Justice vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct of the magistrate the learned
acting judge placed reliance on s (9)(1)(a) of the Magistrate‘s Courts Act, 32 of 1944,
which provides that magistrates are appointed by the Minister of Justice. The high
court also relied upon section 10 of the Magistrates Act 90 of 1993, which provides
that the Minister shall appoint magistrates in consultation with the Magistrate‘s
Commission. It was the finding that magistrates are employed by the Minister of
Justice that led the learned acting judge to the conclusion that the Minister, as an
employer, is ‗vicariously liable for the conduct of magistrates acting within the course
and scope of their employment‘. That conclusion ignores the well-established
principle that magistrates, when they act in the course and scope of their judicial
functions, enjoy, like all judicial officers, a status of judicial independence.2 This
status of judicial independence means that although magistrates may remain state
employees under their contracts of employment, they perform a judicial function and
form part of the judicial branch of government.3

2 Schierhout v Union Government (Minister of Justice) 1919 AD 30 at 42-43; Van Rooyen & others v
The State & others (General Council of the Bar of South Africa Intervening) 2002 (2) SACR 222 (CC)
para 265.
3 President of the Republic of South Africa & others v Reinecke 2014 (3) SA 205 (SCA) para 7.

[21] The question whether the Minister is vicariously liable for the negligent
conduct of a magistrate requires a consideration of the concept of judicial
independence in the context of delictual liability. There is ample authority to the
effect that judicial independence for judicial officers means that they are protected
from liability for their negligent conduct. Harms JA in Telematrix (Pty) Ltd v
Advertising Standards Authority SA 2006 (1) SA 461 (SCA) para 14 stated:
‗… there is obviously a duty - even a legal duty - on a judicial officer to adjudicate cases
correctly and not to err negligently. That does not mean that a judicial officer who fails in the
duty, because of negligence, acted wrongfully. Put in direct terms: can it be unlawful
[wrongful], in the sense that the wronged party is entitled to monetary compensation, for an
incorrect judgment given negligently by a judicial officer, whether in exercising a discretion or
making a value judgment, assessing the facts or in finding, interpreting or applying the
appropriate legal principle? Public or legal policy considerations require that there should be
no liability, ie, that the potential defendant should be afforded immunity against a damages
claim, even from third parties affected by the judgment.‘

[22] The approach in Telematrix accords with the following statement by the
Constitutional Court in Le Roux and others v Dey 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC) para 122:
‗In the more recent past our courts have come to recognise, however, that in the context of
the law of delict: (a) the criterion of wrongfulness ultimately depends on a judicial
determination of whether — assuming all the other elements of delictual liability to be
present — it would be reasonable to impose liability on a defendant for the damages flowing
from specific conduct; and (b) that the judicial determination of that reasonableness would in
turn depend on considerations of public and legal policy in accordance with constitutional
norms. Incidentally, to avoid confusion it should be borne in mind that, what is meant by
reasonableness in the context of wrongfulness has nothing to do with the reasonableness of
the defendant's conduct [which is part of the element of negligence], but it concerns the
reasonableness of imposing liability on the defendant for the harm resulting from that
conduct.‘4

4 See also F v Minister of Safety and Security and others 2012 (1) SA 536 (CC) paras 117-124;
Trustees, Two Oceans Aquarium Trust v Kantey & Templer (Pty) Ltd 2006 (3) SA 138 (SCA) para 11.

[23]  What those decisions mean, in sum, is that a magistrate is not liable for his or
her negligent conduct when performing his or her judicial functions, because for
reasons of public and legal policy his or her conduct is not regarded as wrongful. The
fact that the magistrate is immune from liability for his or her negligent conduct
means there is no basis to hold any other party vicariously liable for such negligent
conduct. That is so because vicarious liability is in general terms defined as the strict
liability of one person for the delict of another. What it means is that a person may be
held liable for the wrongful act or omission of another even though the former did not
strictly engage in any wrongful conduct.5 But, as liability is closely linked to the
wrongful conduct of the primary wrongdoer it is inconceivable that there could be
vicarious or secondary liability where there is no primary delictual liability.

[24]  This is in direct contrast with what happened in cases such as Goldschagg v
Minister van Polisie 1979 (3) SA 1284 (T); De Welzen v Regering van Kwa-Zulu en
‘n ander 1990 (2) SA 915 (N); and Minister of Safety and Security v Kruger 2011 (1)
SACR 529 (SCA). Those cases dealt with a provision in the Police Act which
exempted members of the SAPS from liability in certain circumstances. The question
that arose was whether in those circumstances the Minister was also exempt from
vicarious liability. It was held that the Minister was not exempt. This conclusion
rested squarely on the interpretation that was given to the specific wording of the
statutory enactment. According to that interpretation the section did not mean that
the conduct of the member was not wrongful. What the section provided for, so it
was held, was that in the circumstances contemplated, the member was exempt
from liability despite the fact that his or her conduct remained wrongful (see Kruger
para 18 and De Welzen 923H-I). The reason why the magistrate was not liable in
Telematrix was that his or her conduct was not regarded as wrongful for public or
legal policy considerations. Consequently, because the magistrate‘s conduct is not
regarded as wrongful in delict vicarious liability cannot be imposed upon the Minister.

5 F v Minister of Safety and Security (supra) para 40.

[25]  In the light of the finding that the magistrate did not act maliciously, it is
unnecessary to deal with the issue of whether the minister is vicariously liable for the
malicious conduct of a magistrate.

Conclusion
[26]  The Minister of Safety and Security is accordingly liable for the negligent
conduct of Phoshoko. The Minister of Justice is, however, not vicariously liable for
the negligent conduct of the magistrate. In the light of the finding of negligence on
the part of the magistrate, a copy of this judgment will be made available to the
Magistrate‘s Commission, as an entity responsible, amongst others, for disciplinary
issues pertaining to magistrates for its consideration.

Quantum
[27]  The high court made an award of R250 000 in favour of each of the
respondents. Ms Baloyi, for the appellants, submitted that the individual awards were
inconsistent with those made by courts in similar matters. She made reference to the
case of Minister of Safety and Security v Seymour6 where this court reduced an
award in the amount of R500 000 and substituted it with one of R90 000. In that case
the plaintiff was a 63 year old farmer who was detained for a period of five days.
Whilst in prison he fell ill. A doctor who subsequently examined him diagnosed
hypertension and angina and gave instructions that he should be taken to hospital.
That was not done immediately and after he was eventually hospitalised, it
transpired that he also suffered from severe symptoms of post-traumatic stress and
depression. In dealing with the appropriate approach in awarding damages this court
said [para 17]:
‗The assessment of awards of general damages with reference to awards made in previous
cases is fraught with difficulty. The facts of a particular case need to be looked at as a whole
and few cases are directly comparable. They are a useful guide to what other courts have
considered to be appropriate but they have no higher value than that…‘.

6 Minister of Safety and Security v Seymour 2006 (6) SA 320 (SCA) para 19.

In para 20 the court continued:
‗Money can never be more than a crude solatium for the deprivation of what in truth can
never be restored and there is no empirical measure for the loss. The awards I have referred
to reflect no discernible pattern other than that courts are not extravagant in compensating
the loss. It needs also to be kept in mind when making such awards that there are legitimate
calls upon the public purse to ensure that other rights that are no less important also receive
protection.‘

[28]  Recently, in Woji v The Minister of Police7 this court awarded the plaintiff
damages in the amount of R500 000. In that case the plaintiff was arrested as a
result of mistaken identity and imprisoned for a period of thirteen months. He was
placed in an overcrowded prison and was subjected to a gang that sodomised other
prisoners. He was raped twice, and as a result experienced difficulty in having sexual
relations with his girlfriend. He also witnessed another prisoner being stabbed, which
made him fear for his life. He was allocated a single cell after eight months but was
as a result isolated and lonely.

[29]  In this case the respondents are former police officers who both held the rank
of captain at the time of their resignation. They testified that they were subjected to
appalling conditions and had to endure the humiliation of being imprisoned by and in
front of their former colleagues. On the first night they had to withstand the cold cells
as they were detained in winter and slept on the cement floor with only one blanket.
As police officers who had arrested some of the prison inmates they were concerned
about their safety. The following day, after the unsuccessful attempt to bring a bail
application on their behalf, they slept in holding cells at the Alberton Police Station
and upon their return to prison, they were moved to a single cell. Van Wyk stated
that for a while after that experience he could not sleep well. Van Der Walt stated
that as a result he suffered from influenza, lost weight and developed kidney
complications which necessitated surgery to remove what turned out to be kidney
stones. No evidence was led to dispute their testimony on the prison conditions and
their personal experiences. Due regard being had to all of these factors the award

7 Woji v Minister of Police (92/2012) [2014] ZASCA 108 (11 September 2014).

made by the high court is disproportionate. An appropriate award, in my view, is an
amount of R120 000 for each of the respondents.

Costs
[30]  In light of the fact that the Minister of Safety and Security has been
unsuccessful in the appeal, the respondents are accordingly entitled to their costs.
Although the Minister of Justice has been successful, regard being had to all the
facts, I am of the view that the Minister of Justice and the respondents should each
pay their own costs.

[31] In the result I make the following order:

The appeal by the first appellant is upheld in part.
1.1  The order of the high court in respect of the first appellant is set aside
and substituted as follows:
‗(a)  The first defendant is ordered to make payment to the first plaintiff in an
amount of R120 000.
(b)
The first defendant is ordered to make payment to the second plaintiff in
an amount of R120 000.
(c)  The first defendant is ordered to pay interest on the amounts in (a) and
(b) of the order at the rate of 15.5 per cent per annum from the date of
demand to the date of payment.
(d)   The first defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiffs‘ costs of suit together
with interest thereon at the prescribed rate of 15.5 per cent per annum from
14 days after taxation to date of payment. Such costs are to include the costs
of two counsel where employed.‘

2. The first appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal including the costs
consequent upon employment of two counsel where employed.

3. The appeal by the second appellant is upheld. The order of the high court is set
aside and each party is ordered to pay their own costs in respect of the second
appellant‘s appeal.

_________________________

Z L L TSHIQI

JUDGE OF APPEAL

APPEARANCES

For Appellants:

Advocate M.S Baloyi
Instructed by:
State Attorney, Johannesburg

State Attorney, Bloemfontein

For Respondents:

Advocate RS Willis (with him A Mooij)
Instructed by:

Gerard Cullhane Attorneys, Roodepoort
Van Schalkwyk and Partners, Bloemfontein

.