---

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

 

NOT REPORTABLE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH)

Case No: 2233/2011

In the matter between:                                                                               

MZIMKULU ERIC MANZIYA                                                                                           Plaintiff

And

MINISTER OF POLICE                                                                                              Defendant

 

Coram:                     Chetty J

Date Heard:             29 and 30 January 2014, 21 February 2014

Date Delivered:        6 March 2014

Summary:                Damages – Unlawful arrest – Detention – Malicious prosecution – With warrant – Onus – Wrong person arrested - Absence of reasonable belief – Arrest unlawful

                                    Assault - Evidence establishing assault –

Action for malicious prosecution misconceived – Legal principles restated – Damages assessed at R350 000.00

JUDGMENT

Chetty, J

[1] The plaintiff’s action for damages against the defendant arises from (i) his  arrest on 27 September 2008 by Warrant Officer Luvuyo Lesley Nyathi (Nyathi), an employee of the defendant; his initial detention at the Walmer police station from 27 September 2008 to 29 September 2008; his subsequent detention at the St Albans prison from 29 September 2008 to 3 November 2008; (ii) an assault allegedly perpetrated upon him by Nyathi on 27 September 2008 at the Kwadesi police station and (iii) his alleged malicious prosecution from 28 September 2008 until 4 December 2008 when the charges were withdrawn against him. 

Wrongful Arrest and Detention

[2] It is common cause that the plaintiff was arrested on a warrant issued by the Magistrates’ Court in Port Elizabeth destined for the named arrestee, one Zama Siyabonga Makhotyane (Zama). Section 46[1] of the Criminal Procedure Act[2]exempts an arrestor and, a fortiori, the person or entity vicariously responsible for his/her act, who is mistaken in regard to the identity of the person named in the warrant. If the arrestor believes that the person whom he/she takes into custody is the one who, according to the warrant, he/she must arrest, such person would not be held liable for an unlawful arrest. It is trite law that the onus rests on the arrestor to show that he/she acted reasonably and is consequently protected from liability pursuant to the provisions of s 46. Put differently, the section exonerates anyone from the consequences of an unlawful arrest provided he/she had reasonable grounds for believing that the person he/she had arrested was the one who, according to the warrant of arrest, had to be arrested. In Ingram v Minister of Justice[3] Vieyra, AJ, propounded the law as, viz., “whether an ordinarily prudent and cautious person, authorized and bound to execute the warrant, would have believed that the plaintiff was the person named therein.”

[3] Apropos the aforegoing legal principles, I turn to consider whether the defendant has discharged the onus resting upon it.  Nyathi, the defendant’s sole witness, was the investigating officer in the case of the State v Zama Siyabonga Makhotyane, CAS number 252/11/2007 in which Zama had been charged with assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. After his release on bail, Zama failed to appear in court on 7 April 2008 and the magistrate duly authorised a warrant for his arrest. The particulars of the named arrestee were recorded in the warrant as: -

NB: Please check PDF for Warrant

[4] It is not in issue that on 27 September 2008, at approximately 21h40 Nyathi, armed with the warrant, arrested the plaintiff in the vicinity of his home situate at […..]. He testified that earlier that day he had repaired to the plaintiff’s home but found the house locked. On his return later that day, he once more found the residence deserted and, on enquiry from a neighbour whether one Zama Siyabonga Makhotyane resided there was informed that she was unaware of the occupant’s name. Synchronously, she pointed to the plaintiff who was walking in the street and identified him as the occupant of the house.

[5] Nyathi testified as follows: -

“I approached this man whilst he was in the street. I introduced myself to him as Warrant Officer Nyathi from the detectives in Walmer. I asked him his name. He told me that his name is Eric. I asked him whether he was not Zama Siyabonga Maqotyana, and he told me that no I do not know such a person. I then told him that it is surprising that the name you now give to me appears in the profile that is in my possession, and the very same names that you are mentioning are in the profile and the same person is sometimes using the names Zama Siyabonga Maqotyana.”

[6] Nyathi’s version of the circumstances surrounding the plaintiff’s arrest is in direct conflict with the plaintiff’s. What follows is his version of the circumstances surrounding his arrest. He testified that Nyathi asked him whether he was Eric Mzimkulu Manziya and when he replied in the affirmative, Nyathi not only denounced him as a liar but importuned that he was in fact one Zama Siyabonga Makhotyane, the name Eric Mzimkulu Manziya merely being one of his many aliases. At the police station at Kwadesi, Nyathi persisted with the accusation that he was Zama and inter alia informed him that the information at his disposal revealed that he was born in Port Alfred and that if he remained resolute that he was not Zama, he would ensure that his previously withdrawn cases would be reinstated. His obstinacy that he was not Zama moreover precipitated an assault upon him by Nyathi. I interpolate to say that I shall detail the plaintiff’s evidence concerning the assault allegedly perpetrated upon him by Nyathi in due course, but first, a continual of the arrest scenario.

[7] It is common cause that the plaintiff was transported by other policemen from the Kwadesi police station to the Walmer police station. The plaintiff testified that prior to his incarceration in the cell, Nyathi repeatedly addressed him as Zama, took his fingerprints and detained him in the cells. The plaintiff’s evidence concerning his interaction with Nyathi at the Walmer police station was denied by him. His evidence was that the sole purpose of going to the Walmer police station was to ascertain whether the plaintiff had arrived there and this he did by checking the occurrence book and the SAP 14 register. He neither saw the plaintiff nor took his fingerprints.

[8] As adumbrated hereinbefore the plaintiff testified that at the Kwadesi police station Nyathi had threatened that he would reinstate the charges which had previously been withdrawn against him. Under cross-examination Nyathi denied not only having any prior knowledge of the plaintiff but having had anything to do with him prior to his arrest. It is not in issue that at the plaintiff’s first appearance in court where he disputed that he was Zama, the magistrate ordered that the matter be investigated. It is evident from the magistrate’s manuscript record[4] of those proceedings that Nyathi in fact had prior knowledge of the plaintiff. The longhand record reflects that after being duly sworn in Nyathi testified as follows:-

“The fingerprints of the accused before court are those of the person that appears on warrant of arrest. I know accused from the case of murder. He was Eric Manziya. It is his CV that tell me that the person who appears in the w/a is accused before court. This case was with Constable Poro before it came to me. He is stationed at CID, Walmer.”

[9] Under cross-examination, Nyathi initially denied having been called to testify during the plaintiff’s first appearance and maintained that he merely spoke to the prosecutor. When the longhand record was put to him by Ms Ayerst, and which exposed the untruthfulness of this tittle of evidence, he changed tack and was overcome by a sudden bout of amnesia. The record exposes the untruthfulness of his evidence that he repaired to the local criminal record centre to verify the plaintiff’s fingerprints. His amnesiac spell was thereafter not confined merely to the events in court but extended to the circumstances which preceded the arrest of the plaintiff. In his evidence in chief Nyathi had steadfastly maintained that on receipt of the warrant of arrest he immediately recognized that the address reflected thereon as being that of the arrestee was fictitious and consequently refrained from visiting the address.

[10] The falisty of this evidence is however underscored by entries made by him in the investigation diary itself. It records that Nyathi visited the address stipulated in the warrant, to wit, […] and the note made by him reads: - “he doesn’t stay there”. Under cross-examination, Nyathi initially decried any knowledge of having visited the address to trace the said Zama. As adumbrated earlier, the reason proffered for his refrain was his knowledge that the address was non-existent. When the aforementioned entry in the investigation diary[5], which, he was constrained to admit, ends with his signature, was put to him, he proffered the absurd answer that what he intended to record was that the address did not exist.

[11] As his cross-examination progressed, it became evident that Nyathi is an incorrigible liar. The plaintiff’s evidence that Nyathi took his fingerprints at the Walmer police station was vehemently denied. The falsity of this denial is amply demonstrated by the case docket itself. The SAP192, titled, “Finger and/or Palm prints for elimination/comparison purposes” records the name of the suspect as one “Zama Siyabonga Makhotyane, case no 252/11/2007”; the date 2008/09/29; contains the plaintiff’s finger and palm prints and bears Nyathi’s signature, number and rank.

[12] Nyathi’s lack of candour permeates the entire body of his testimony. It is the height of folly, to suggest that the plaintiff, facing imminent arrest in the immediate vicinity of his home and having decried being Zama, would, on being asked to provide his identity document, have stated that he had misplaced it. I accept the plaintiff’s evidence that he was not asked to produce his identity document. The reason for the omission is clear – given his previous association with the plaintiff, coupled to the conflated information in his criminal record profile, Nyathi assumed that the named arrestee on the warrant was the plaintiff.

[13] The question which ultimately falls for adjudication is whether such belief was reasonable so as to exonerate the defendant from liability. In my judgment the facts compel the conclusion that Nyathi’s belief was not only unreasonable but that the arrest itself was actuated by vindictiveness. Why else would Nyathi, on confronting the plaintiff, have referred to the charges which had previously been withdrawn against him? The belief that the plaintiff was Zama was based entirely on the SAP profile which listed the plaintiff’s names, surname and address. The plaintiff’s vehement and persistent denial that he was not Zama should, at the very least, have alerted Nyathi to the possibility that he was telling the truth. Recourse to the docket in case number 252/11/2007 would immediately have established that the plaintiff was not the person in respect of whom the warrant had been issued. As the investigating officer in that matter, he had ready access to the docket. Cursory examination thereof would have alerted him to the fallacy of his hunch. Given the ramifications of an arrest, the prudent policeman would have established the facts before proceeding to act on a hunch.

[14] Although the plaintiff’s evidence was not without blemish, it is evident that he is an illiterate person. The imperfections in his testimony are no doubt attributable to his indigence and lack of schooling. His truthfulness on crucial aspects however finds resonance in the plethora of documentary evidence. His admission that he had indeed been arrested on a charge of murder, which had subsequently been withdrawn, finds corroboration in Nyathi’s testimony as alluded to in paragraph [8] hereinbefore and gives the lie to Nyathi’s testimony that he had no prior knowledge of the plaintiff. Upon a holistic appraisal of the evidence adduced the plaintiff’s arrest was clearly unlawful.

The Assault

[15] Nyathi confirmed that on his arrest, the plaintiff had no visible injuries. On arrival at the Walmer police station later that evening, an injury to the left eye was however noted in the occurrence book. The correctness of the entry is not in dispute. Given the blatant untruths which permeate his testimony, Nyathi’s fanciful suggestion that the plaintiff could have suffered the injury in the police van en route to the Walmer police station can readily be discounted. Although the plaintiff exaggerated the extent and sequelae of the injury, I accept that the injury was inflicted upon him by Nyathi in the manner described. 

Malicious Prosecution

[16] The claim for malicious prosecution is however entirely misconceived. The legal position was articulated by Eksteen, J, in Thompson and Another v Minister of Police and Another, where the learned judge said the following[6]: -

“In claims based on malicious arrest, malicious prosecution or malicious execution, however, it has been held that it is essential for the plaintiff to allege and prove that the defendant acted maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause (Hart v. Cohen, 16 S.C. 363; Estate Logie v. Priest, 1926  G A.D. 312 at p. 315; Beckenstrater v Rottcher and Theunissen, 1955 (1) SA 129 (AD) at p. 135; van der Merwe v. Strydom, 1967 (3) SA 460 (AD) at p. 467). In May v. Union Government, 1954 (3) SA 120 (N) at p. 129, BROOME, J.P., held that:

   "It is well settled that malice in relation to malicious prosecution means any indirect or improper motive. It is the duty of the plaintiff to satisfy the Court, on a balance of probability, that the prosecutor set the criminal law in motion, not with the object of obtaining the conviction of the wrongdoer, but for some ulterior object."

In Moaki v. Reckitt and Colman (Africa) Ltd. and Another, 1968 (3) SA 98 (AD), WESSELS, J.A., in delivering the judgment of the Court, referred to the cases quoted above, and at p. 104 he says:

   "A consideration of the various judgments in the cases cited in the preceding paragraph leads me to conclude that despite the use of the terms 'malice' and 'maliciously', it was not intended to formulate any principle that in the actions in question the motive of the defendant, in acting as he was alleged to have acted, was in any way a determining element of legal liability. It is, however, equally clear from those judgments that the defendant's state of mind in doing the act complained of is a material determining element of legal liability. In both Hart v. Cohen, and Lemue v. Zwartbooi, supra, it is indicated that the plaintiff's remedy is provided  by the actio injuriarum. Where relief is claimed by this actio the plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant intended to injure (either dolus directus or indirectus). Save to the extent that it might afford evidence of the defendant's true intention or might possibly be taken into account in fixing the quantum of damages, the motive of the defendant is not of any legal relevance."

The learned Judge then goes on to refer to the basic elements of the actio injuriarum; under which heading malicious proceedings undoubtedly fall. Those elements may be summarised as a wrongful act intentionally done and which constitutes an agression upon the person, dignity or reputation of another. (R. v. Chipo and Others, 1953 (4) SA 573 (AD) at p. 576; O'Keeffe v. Argus Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd. and Another 1954 (3) SA 244 (AD) at p. 247). I do not understand the learned Judge, however, to detract in any way from the principles laid down in the earlier cases referred to above, but merely to emphasise that the use of the expressions "malice" or "maliciously" or "indirect or improper motive" should always be seen to refer to the basic requirement of animus injuriandi, and that it is as well that this should be clearly stated so as to avoid any misconceptions based on semantic reasoning. This seems to be borne out by the subsequent decision of the same Court in the case of Lederman v. Moharal Investments (Pty.) Ltd., 1969 (1) SA 190 (AD), where JANSEN, J.A., at p. 196, in delivering the judgment of the Court sets out the essential elements of an action for malicious prosecution as being:

 "(a)   that the respondent set the law in motion (instigated or instituted the proceedings);

   (b)   that it acted without reasonable and probable cause; and

   (c)   that it was actuated by an indirect or improper motive (malice)."

Such an interpretation of the judgment referred to is also entirely consistent with the dictum of INNES, C.J., in Burkett  F v. Smith, 1920 AD 106 at p. 108, where the learned Judge indicates that in an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff could only succeed

   "by showing a want of real and probable cause, and the existence of animus injuriandi."

[17] There is no evidence that Nyathi either instigated or instituted any criminal proceedings against the plaintiff. All that happened was that the plaintiff was remanded in custody by the magistrate on the acceptance of Nyathi’s testimony that he was the person whose particulars appeared on the warrant of arrest. Although the plaintiff was detained thereafter, no prosecution in fact ensued. When the plaintiff’s attorney, Mr van Rensburg, intervened and established his true identity the plaintiff was immediately released from custody. The plaintiff’s prolonged detention is however entirely attributable to Nyathi’s dereliction of duty. As adumbrated hereinbefore, recourse to the docket would have established that he had arrested the wrong person. The plaintiff’s unlawful detention did not cease when the magistrate issued the detention order in terms of s 50 (1)[7]. It followed upon Nyathi’s imprudent and careless conduct which renders the defendant liable in  damages for the prolonged period of his incarceration.

Damages

[18] The plaintiff was incarcerated from the date of his arrest i.e. 27 September 2008 until his release on 4 November 2008. On his arrest he was assaulted by Nyathi, but the true extent of the assault appears to have been exaggerated. However, I accept that he was assaulted and must be compensated. Although the plaintiff’s claims resort under separate heads, I propose to award a globular sum for the arrest, assault and detention. The extended duration of the plaintiff’s detention is a decisive factor in the assessment of an appropriate award. Having regard to the cases cited by both counsel and the awards made therein, I consider that damages should be awarded in the sum of R350 000.00. In the result the following orders will issue: -

1.    The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of R350 000.00.

2.    Costs of suit.

3.    Interest on the amount at the prescribed legal rate of 15.5% per annum a tempore morae to date of final payment.

________________________________

D.CHETTY

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

Obo the plaintiff:                            Adv H. B. Ayerst

Instructed by                                 Struwig Hattingh Attorneys, 28-7^th Avenue, Newton Park,

                                                           Port Elizabeth, Ref: Morne Struwig, Tel: (041) 364 2624

 

Obo the defendant:                  Adv N. Gqamana

Instructed by                           State Attorneys, 29 Western Road, Central, Port Elizabeth,

                                                     Ref: H A Swart; Tel (041) 585 7921

---

---