ECP_LPL4802_EXAM_JULY_2021

QUESTION 1 (1.1) Indicate fully, why the court (in this case) decided against heavily relying on decided cases in its determination of damages for unlawful arrest. (10) In the case of Madyibi v Minister of Police 2020 (2) SACR 243 (ECM),1 the court decided against heavily relying on decided cases in its determination of damages for unlawful arrest because of the following reasons. Madyibi`s case is similar to the cases of Maphalala v Minister of Law and Order, Ramakulukusha v Commander, Venda National Force, Minister of Justice v Hofmeyr and Candice J Nel v Minister of Police CA62/2017. The similarities of these cases is that they both rely on the mere fact of unlawful arrest and detention causing plaintiff to suffer damages and awarded certain amount of money by the court. Furthermore, their conditions in detention were not good and health. They were both arrested and released with no charge. These decided cases and the case of Madyibi are explained in the following paragraphs. In the case of Madyibi v Minister of Police,2 the plaintiff had been hired by a community to demarcate certain land. While doing so he was accosted by the police, arrested, and held overnight in the cells. The court held that there was no evidence to indicate that he had committed any offence in terms of the Special Planning and Land Use Management and that both his arrest and detention were unlawful. The court further rejected the contention by the defendant that the plaintiff had not proved any damages because of said arrest and detention. It held that arrest and detention were serious violations of the right to freedom under the Constitution and once that right had been infringed, and it was found that there was no just cause for such arrest and detention, the arrested person would have suffered a measure of damages. An award of R40 000 was considered appropriate