The North West High Court has ruled in favour of an unemployed 57-year-old man who sued the police for unlawful arrest.
Following a court order directing Senzo Mchunu, the minister of police, to compensate Mosha Maetso for his wrongful arrest and detention, he is now R650 000 richer.
The case arose from an incident that happened on May 19, 2021.
Court documents state that Maetso was taken into custody without a warrant while riding in a car between Wolmaranstad and Makwassie. He was suspected of cable theft.
The charges against him were eventually dropped after he was held for forty-three days.
He claimed that during this time, he was subjected to inhumane conditions in police detention cells, such as poor bedding and a dearth of warm clothing and hot water.
Maitso further claimed that these circumstances led to an infection in his throat, which resulted in irreversible harm to his vocal chords.
He told the court that during the nationwide lockdown in March 2020, he lost his job as a truck driver.
Judgment in default of a plea
Judge Johanna Titus stated in her ruling: “The minister of police failed to deliver a plea in response to Maitso’s claims, resulting in the police being barred from pleading.”
As a result, Maetso asked the court for a judgment in default of a plea, which it granted.
The court found that Maetso had established the illegality of his arrest and subsequent detention on the balance of probabilities.
“This court has found that the plaintiff was arrested and detained unlawfully by the police,” the judge said.
“The arresting officers must have foreseen and reconciled themselves to the fact that, absent any evidence to the contrary from them, their arrest and detention of the plaintiff would be unlawful.
“So too, as a consequence, any subsequent judicial detention. For this reason, the first defendant is also liable to the plaintiff for his judicial detention.”
The court continued by stating that there was no empirical way to quantify the loss and that money could never be more than a crude solatium for the deprivation of something that, in reality, could never be restored.
The judge described the elements that are typically taken into consideration when determining the amount of damages.
Denial of physical freedom
The factors were circumstances under which the deprivation of liberty took place, such as the presence or absence of improper motive or “malice” on the part of the defendant; the harsh conduct of the defendant; the duration and nature of the deprivation of liberty; the status, standing, age, health, and disability of the plaintiff; the extent of the publicity given to the deprivation of liberty; and awards in previous comparable cases together with the effect of inflation.
Apart from the denial of physical freedom, other personality interests like honour, reputation, and good name were also taken into consideration, along with the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.
“The plaintiff suffered the indignity of an unlawful incarceration. He further testified to the general unpleasant conditions in his holding cell that he shared with many others and also the quality of the culinary options available there.
“In addition to the conditions of his detention, he complains also that, on his release from detention, he was shunned by his community, who now view him with suspicion and call him a’skelm’.”
