Minister of Police v Sabisa and another (Leave to Appeal)

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: Nhlangulela DJP
• Judgment Date: 11 July 2023
• Docket Number: 2889/2016
• Hearing Date: 06 July 2023
• Court: Eastern Cape Division

Nhlangulela DJP:

[1]

The applicant applies for leave to appeal pursuant to the judgment that the police had unlawfully arrested, detained and assaulted the respondents in violation of the provisions of ss 44 and 50 (1) (a) of the CPA and their constitutional rights in terms of ss 10 and 12 (1) of the Constitution which are:

2023 JDR 2761 p2

Nhlangulela DJP

not to be deprived of their freedom arbitrarily or without just cause, to be free from all forms of violence and not to be tortured.

[2]

There is no appeal against the quantum of damages that was fixed in the sum of R510 000 for payment to each of the respondents. However, it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that since the payment of such damages depends on the appeal court’s decision on the liability issue, the judgment on quantum will not stand. These submissions are reasonable in my view. I did not hear counsel for the respondent to be suggesting otherwise.

[3]

There is also no appeal against the factual findings made by the trial court. The appeal is predicated on legal grounds. Therefore, the crisp issue for decision is whether, or not, the trial court misapplied the provisions of ss 44 and 51 (1) (a) of the CPA. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgment of the trial court based on the application of these subsections cannot be faulted. Put differently, since the outcome of these proceedings is limited to a decision in terms of s 17 (1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 (prospect of success and /or compelling reason), this court must only confine its decision on the application of ss 44 and 51(1) (a) of the CPA.

[4]

On the consideration of the approach that I adopted, the provisions of s 44 envisage the use of a warrant of arrest that would have been authorised on a

2023 JDR 2761 p3

Nhlangulela DJP

prescribed form. In this case, I found that in completing the form the magistrate did not indicate the place where the respondents had to be taken to upon arrest. In light of that omission, I held the view that the police were obliged to arrest and take the respondents directly to the police station, and as soon as possible as is envisaged in s 50 (1) (a) of the CPA. I rejected the submission that the section permits deviating to the Butterworth office where interrogations, assault, and torture were done. It also concerned me a great deal that the police might not have obtained a valid warrant of arrest from the magistrate, which is the...