Minister of Police v Mathunyane and Another (A2025/014154) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1273 (12 December 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 1273 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Minister of Police v Mathunyane and Another (A2025/014154) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1273 (12 December 2025) Minister of Police v Mathunyane and Another (A2025/014154) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1273 (12 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_1273.html sino date 12 December 2025 THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG APPEAL CASE NO: A2025-014154 COURT A QUO CASE NO: 2021-40219 (1)  REPORTABLE: NO (2)  OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:NO (3)  REVISED: YES ....12/12/2025 In the matter between: MINISTER OF POLICE                                                  APPELLANT and MAAKGANYE MATRON MATHUNYANE FIRST   RESPONDENT TIMOTHY SETSHWAHLA MASILELA                           SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Nkoenyane AJ: INTRODUCTION 1.  This is an appeal against the quantum of damages only, brought by the Appellant, the Minister of Police. The appeal is directed at the judgment and order of the Honourable Acting Judge Minnaar (the court a quo ) handed down on the 14 th of October 2024, wherein the 1st Respondent was awarded R400,000.00 and the 2nd Respondent was awarded R200,000.00 for unlawful arrest and detention. 2.  The Appellant contends that the awards are grossly excessive and seeks their substitution with an award of R90,000.00 for each Respondent. The Respondents oppose the appeal and seek its dismissal with costs on an attorney and client scale. BACKGROUND 3.  The facts, for the purposes of this appeal, are largely common cause. The Respondents were unlawfully arrested at their home on the 21 st of May 2021 at approximately 06h00 and were detained for a period of approximately 82 hours (three days and ten hours) until their release on the 24 th of May 2021 at about 16h30, without ever appearing in court. 4.  The merits of the claim (the lawfulness of the arrest and detention) were conceded by the Appellant at the commencement of the trial in the court a quo. The only issue before that court was the quantum of damages. GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND SUBMISSIONS 5.  The Appellant's grounds of appeal, as detailed in the Notice of Appeal, can be summarised as follows: a.     The court a quo erred in awarding amounts that are grossly excessive for a three-day detention period. b.     The court misdirected itself by failing to accord sufficient weight to the absence of certain aggravating factors, such as the use of force, physical injury, proven psychological trauma requiring counselling, or malice on the part of the police. c.     The court erred in its assessment of the First Respondent's credibility, particularly by not treating her evidence with sufficient caution due to a contradiction in her testimony regarding a prior arrest. d. The court a quo incorrectly introduced a punitive element into the award, misapplying the principles in Mahlangu and Another v Minister of Police [1] . e. The court failed to adequately consider the cautionary dicta in Minister of Safety and Security v Seymour [2] regarding the legitimate calls on the public purse and the principle that damages are meant to offer solace, not to enrich. 6.  The Respondents, in their Heads of Argument, support the judgment of the court a quo . Their core submissions are: a. The right to freedom and security in terms of Section 12 of the Constitution [3] , of the person is a fundamental constitutional right, and its deprivation must be viewed seriously. b. The award is not a mathematical calculation but a discretionary exercise to fairly compensate for the infringement of constitutional rights, including dignity in terms of Section 10 and freedom in terms of Section 12 [4] . c. The learned judge correctly considered the relevant factors from Rahim v Minister of Home Affairs [5] : the circumstances of the arrest, the conduct of the defendant, and the nature and duration of the deprivation. d.     The conditions of detention, as testified to by the Respondents, were deplorable, and the Appellant provided no justification for the eighty-two (82) hours deprivation of liberty. e.    The awards are consistent with recent comparative jurisprudence, including Radasi v Minister of Police [6] , in which the award was  Three Hundred Thousand Rands (R300,000,00) for three (3) days, and Claasens v Nakana and Others [7] , in which the award was Four Hundred Thousand Rand (R400,000,00) for forty-three (43) hours. THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES 7.  The legal principles governing an appeal of this nature are trite. An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's award of damages merely because it would have awarded a different amount. The power to interfere is limited to instances where the trial court: a.     misdirected itself on the facts or the law; b.     failed to consider all relevant factors; c.     considered irrelevant factors; or d.     where the award is so disproportionate that it can be described as "shocking" or "startlingly inappropriate" or "out of all proportion to the circumstances". 8. The assessment of damages for unlawful arrest and detention is not an exact science. As stated in Minister of Safety and Security v Seymour [8] : 8.1 "The assessment of awards of general damages with reference to awards made in previous cases is fraught with difficulty. The facts of a particular case need to be looked at as a whole and few cases are directly comparable. They are a useful guide to what other courts have considered to be appropriate, but they have no higher value than that." 9. The relevant factors to consider in making such an assessment were succinctly set out in Rahim v Minister of Home Affairs [9] and include: a.     The circumstances under which the deprivation of liberty took place; b.     The conduct of the defendant; and c.     The nature and duration of the deprivation. 10. Crucially, such awards must reflect the value that the Constitution places on the right to liberty. As stated in Thandani v Minister of Law and Order [10] : 10.1       ‘’The liberty of the individual is one of the fundamental rights of a man in a free society which should be jealously guarded at all times and there is a duty on our courts to preserve this right against infringement." ANALYSIS 11. I now proceed to consider whether the court a quo exercised its discretion judicially or whether there was a misdirection of such a nature as to justify interference with its decision. 12. The Nature of the Infringement : The starting point is the severe nature of the infringement. The Respondents were deprived of their fundamental right to liberty for eighty-two (82) hours. They were arrested at their home in the early morning, in the presence of their children, which constitutes an affront to their dignity. The Appellant provided no justification for this prolonged detention without bringing them before a court. This failure is a significant aggravating factor. 13. Absence of Aggravating Factors: The Appellant correctly points to the absence of extreme aggravating factors such as assault, torture, or proven severe psychological trauma. However, the absence of the most egregious conduct does not render a substantial award inappropriate. The core wrong remains the severe and unjustified deprivation of liberty itself. The court a quo was entitled to find that the mere fact of being incarcerated for over three (3) days in poor conditions, without charge or explanation, is a deeply traumatic and dignitary-affecting experience. Further the First Respondent had not offered her right to a phone call or legal services. 14. Credibility of the 1st Respondent: The contradiction in the First Respondent's evidence regarding a prior arrest was a factor for the court a quo to weigh. The court a quo, which saw and heard the witnesses, was best placed to assess her overall credibility. Its judgment shows it was alive to the evidence, and a single contradiction on a collateral issue does not automatically render a witness's entire testimony unreliable, nor does it constitute a material misdirection justifying appellate interference with the award. 15. The Purposive Role of Damages: The Appellant's argument that the court a quo introduced a punitive element is not entirely convincing. While the primary purpose of such damages is compensatory ( solatium ) and not punitive, our courts have consistently held, following Fose v Minister of Safety and Security [11] and Mahlangu and Another v Minister of Police [12] , that in cases involving the violation of constitutional rights by the state, awards must also serve a vindicatory and deterrent purpose. They must signal that the rights in the Bill of Rights are real and that their violation will not be trivialised. An award that is too low would fail to reflect the seriousness of the constitutional breach. The court a quo reference to Mahlangu was to underscore this principle, not to blindly equate the facts. 16. The awards are on the higher end of the scale for a detention of this duration. The award in respect of the First Respondent is in our opinion “shockingly" disproportionate given obvious questions which arise as to the circumstances under which she was detained given that it was dark and that she probably exaggerated the conditions in the cell. That said, the amount awarded to the First Respondent should be higher than the amount proposed by the appellant  given the circumstances in which she was transported. The Appellant's proposed figure of Ninety Thousand Rand (R90,000,00) per person appears, in the current legal landscape, to be inordinately low and would not adequately serve the vindicatory purpose of such an award. 17. The Seymour Principle : The court a quo was obliged to consider the caution in Seymour regarding the public purse. However, this principle is a factor in the balancing exercise, not a trump card. The paramount duty of the court is to award fair compensation for a serious wrong. Balancing the constitutional rights of individuals against the state's financial constraints cannot result in the systemic undervaluation of fundamental freedoms. CONCLUSION 18. Having considered the record, the arguments of both parties, and the relevant authorities, we are persuaded that the court a quo committed a material misdirection in respect of the amount awarded to the First Respondent. 19. Consequently, the appeal partially succeeds. ORDER 20. In the result, the following order is made: 1.     The appeal partially succeeds. 2.     The First Respondent quantum is reduced to R250,000.00 3.     The Second Respondent quantum is confirmed at R200,000.00 4.     No order as to costs. NKOENYANE AJ JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG I agree. MABESELE J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG I agree. VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN AJ ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG Appearances APPELLANT'S COUNSEL: Adv P Z Mamabolo APPELLANT'S ATTORNEYS: The State Attorney, Johannesburg RESPONDENTS' COUNSEL: Adv F J Mamitja RESPONDENTS' ATTORNEYS: Jean Keyser Attorneys Inc HEARD ON: 19 NOVEMBER 2025 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: 12 DECEMBER 2025 [1] Mahlangu and Another v Minister of Police 2021 (2) SARC 595 (CC) [2] Minister of Safety and Security V Seymour 2006 (6) SA 320 (SCA) [3] The Constitution of Republic of South Africa,1996, Section 12. [4] The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,1996. [5] Rahim V Minister of Home Affairs 2015 (4) SA 433 (SCA) at para 26 [6] Radasi v Minister of Police (5729/2019)[ 2021] ZAGP JHC 79 [7] Claasens v Nakana and Others (137/2024) [2025} ZASCA 52 [8] Minister of Safety and Security v Seymour 2006 (6) SA 320 (SCA) [9] Rahim V Minister of Home Affairs 2015 (4) SA 433 (SCA) [10] Thandani V Minister of Law and Order 1991 (1) SA 702 [11] Fose  V Minister of Safety and Security [1997] ZACC 6 ; 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC) at para 95 [12] Mahlangu and Another v Minister of Police 2021 (2) SARC 595 (CC) sino noindex make_database footer start