Matu v Minister of Safety and Security

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Pakade J
• Judgment Date: 29 May 2008
• Docket Number: 1115/07
• Hearing Date: 23 May 2008
• Court: Transkei Division

Pakade J:

[1] The defendant has excepted to the particulars of plaintiff's claim on the ground that paragraph 8.3 thereof is vague and embarrassing.

[2] In order to be able to comprehend the cause of the complaint by the defendant I should reproduce the whole of paragraph' 8 of the particulars of claim:

"8. As a result of the foregoing plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of R450 000 made up as follows:

8.1

R5000.00, being the costs incurred in defending himself against the trumped up charges;

2008 JDR 0676 p2

Pakade J

8.2

R250 000 .00 for deprivation of liberty and discomfort;

8.3

R195 000-00 for general damages for contumelia and emotional stress".

[3] In the particulars of claim, the plaintiff claims damages for unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution. The two claims have not been separated and are, according to Mr Jozana for the plaintiff, all fused in one paragraph, namely, paragraph 7 of the particulars of claim. I must, once again, reproduce the said paragraph 7 with a view to ascertaining whether or not it embodies both claims:

"7.

In consequence of Sergeant Naki's conduct aforesaid, plaintiff

7.1

was held in custody for several hours; and

7.2

Suffered

7.2.1

humiliation and/or indignity;

7.2.2

incurred damages being the costs reasonably expended by him in defending himself against the aforesaid charges".

[4] The reading of paragraph 7 does not suggest that the claim for malicious prosecution is fused therein but that it is contained in a separate paragraph, namely, paragraph 6 of the particulars of plaintiff' s claim. One finds on a proper reading of paragraph 6 which is about the appearance of the plaintiff in the Magistrate Court on charges preferred against him by Sergeant Naki, that those charges were ultimately withdrawn after numerous postponements which were costly to the plaintiff.

[5] It seems to me that paragraph 8 of the particulars of claim is nothing else but a conclusion drawn from the premises clearly set out in paragraph 6

2008 JDR 0676 p3

Pakade J

and 7 thereof.

[6] Mr Hobbs, counsel for the defendant premised his argument on the basis that paragraph 8.3 is vague and embarrassing because it has not been stated how much is claimed for unlawful arrest and how much for malicious prosecution. The short answer to counsel's submission is, as said above, that the conclusion set out in paragraph 8 is derived from the premises set out in paragraph 6 and 7 of the...