Seymour v Minister of Safety and Security

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judgment Date: 16 February 2005
• Citation: 2006 (5) SA 495 (W)

Seymour v Minister of Safety and Security
2006 (5) SA 495 (W)

2006 (5) SA p495

Citation	2006 (5) SA 495 (W)
Case No	26508/2001
Court	Witwatersrand Local Division
Judge	Willis J
Heard	February 14, 2005; February 15, 2005
Judgment	February 16, 2005
Counsel	M S Moodliyar (attorney) for the plaintiff.; R Stockwell SC for the defendant.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde B

Delict — Wrongful arrest and detention — Damages — Measure of — Awards of damages should reflect changes in values that have occurred in society as a whole and which courts are expected to apply — Such values including right to freedom and security of person, right to privacy, rights conferred on arrested, detained and accused persons, right to dignity — Constitution, ss 10, 12, 14 and 35. C

Delict — Wrongful arrest and detention — Damages — Measure of — Plaintiff, managing director of public company and chairman of farmers' association, arrested and detained for five days — Only informed of charge day after arrest — Plaintiff suffering serious medical problems attributable to stress experienced as result of his D detention — Charges against plaintiff dropped and no further charges laid — Police officer thereafter, in presence of persons with whom plaintiff having business meeting, saying he would 'get' plaintiff for fraud and misappropriation of funds — More than judicial 'slap on the wrist' warranted — Plaintiff awarded R500 000 damages. E

Headnote : Kopnota

The courts must move, however glacially, to reflect in their awards for damages in cases of wrongful arrest and detention the changes in values which have occurred not only in society as a whole, but which Judges are expected to apply, such as the right to 'freedom and security of the person, which includes the F right - (a) not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause; (b) not to be detained without trial' (s 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996); the right to privacy (s 14 of the Constitution); the rights conferred upon arrested, detained and accused persons by s 35 of the Constitution; and the right to dignity (s 10 of the Constitution). If the courts value those rights, it must be reflected in their judgments. (Paragraphs [10] - [13] at 499I - 500D, G paraphrased.)

The plaintiff, a managing director of a public company and the chairman of a farmers' co-operative association, had instituted action in a Local Division for damages of R10 million for wrongful arrest and detention. It appeared that the plaintiff was arrested on 29 December 2000 by one S, who was acting within the course and scope of his employment with the South African Police Service. The next day he H was taken to the Johannesburg Central Police Station where he was told that the charge against him was fraud. Attempts by the plaintiff's family to have him released on bail were thwarted by S. Medical evidence established that the arrest of the plaintiff resulted in his suffering from angina, irregular heartbeat, high blood pressure and high pulse rate, and that the plaintiff's condition was directly I attributable to the stress which the plaintiff experienced as a result of his detention. The plaintiff was taken to court on 3 January 2001. All charges against him were then withdrawn and no further charges have since then been laid against him. Thereafter S arrived uninvited at a meeting the plaintiff was having with the auditor of a charitable project, a foreign donor, a local donor and other persons. On being asked to leave, S said to the J

2006 (5) SA p496

plaintiff, in the presence of the others, that he would still 'get' the plaintiff 'for fraud and A misappropriation of funds'. Since then the project has received no further financial aid from the foreign and local donors. All that was in issue in the trial was the question of the quantum of damages to be awarded.

Held, that the plaintiff's rights under ss 10, 12, 14 and 35 of the Constitution had in some degree been infringed and his right to dignity had unquestionably been infringed. (Paragraph [12] at B 500C.)

Held, further, applying the principles set out above, that more than a judicial 'slap on the wrist' was warranted in the present case. (Paragraph [13] at 500E.)

Held, further, taking all factors into account, that the defendant should be ordered to pay damages of R500 000 to the plaintiff. (Paragraph [14] at 500G.) C

Cases Considered

Annotations

Reported cases

Areff v Minister van Polisie 1977 (2) SA 900 (A): considered

Bentley and Another v McPherson 1999 (3) SA 854 (E): considered D

Donono v Minister of Prisons 1973 (4) SA 259 (C): considered

Liu Quin Ping v Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd t/a Gold Reef City Casino 2000 (4) SA 68 (W): considered

Manase v Minister of Safety and Security and Another 2003 (1) SA 567 (Ck): considered

May v Union Government 1954 (3) SA 120 (N): discussed E

Minister van Polisie en 'n Ander v Gamble en 'n Ander 1979 (4) SA 759 (A): considered

Minister van Wet en Orde v Van der Heever 1982 (4) SA 16 (C): considered

Moses v Minister of Law and Order 1995 (2) SA 518 (C): considered

Mthimkulu and Another v Minister of Law and Order 1993 (3) SA 432 (E): considered

Ochse v King William's Town Municipality 1990 (2) SA 855 (E): considered F

Ramakulukusha v Commander, Venda National Force 1989 (2) SA 813 (V): applied

Solomon v Visser and Another 1972 (2) SA 327 (C): considered

Stapelberg v Afdelingsraad van die Kaap 1988 (4) SA 875 (C): considered

Thandani v Minister of Law and Order 1991 (1) SA 702 (E): considered

Tobani v Minister of Correctional Services NO [2000] 2 All SA 318 (SE): considered G

Tödt v Ipser 1993 (3) SA 577 (A): considered.

Unreported case

Themba v Minister of Safety and Security (WLD, case No...