The KwaZulu-Natal High Court, sitting in Pietermaritzburg, on December 2, dismissed the claims of three individuals who sought damages following their arrest, detention, and subsequent prosecution for robbery.
This judgment stems from an incident that occurred in May 2013 when the plaintiffs were arrested in direct connection with a robbery in Westville, KZN.
Initially, Sinovuuyo Lisoletu Mgoyi, Namhla Nomkuca and Sandile Maphingana filed separate claims against the National Minister of Police and the National Director of Public Prosecution (NDPP), citing wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution. The claims were later consolidated on May 12, 2015, to address the events surrounding their arrest and the subsequent legal proceedings.
The three argued that the police acted unlawfully when they were arrested without a warrant on May 17, 2013, in the early hours of the morning. They were apprehended following an observation from a monitoring unit, which reported suspicious activity related to a stolen vehicle associated with a robbery that was committed hours earlier. The information relayed to police included descriptions that fitted the group, and as a result, they were taken into custody, where they were detained until their court appearance on May 20, 2013.
During the trial, the defence maintained that reasonable suspicion justified the arrests. According to the police, they considered the circumstances objectively, given the recent robbery involving the stolen vehicle in close proximity to where the plaintiffs were found. The court heard testimonies from police officials who asserted that their actions were based on credible information and a genuine belief that an offence had occurred. As a result, the arrest fell under the lawful parameters set out in section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
The court also examined the role of the prosecutor, Stanley Mark Miloszewski, during these proceedings. The three accused claimed that he failed to assess the case adequately and should have released them on bail or withdrawn charges earlier. However, evidence indicated that the prosecution was actively gathering further evidence within the week following their arrest. By May 27, 2013, after completing investigations and securing witness statements, the charges against the plaintiffs were withdrawn due to insufficient evidence.
In delivering the verdict, the court concluded that the arrests were lawful, noting that the police acted on reasonable suspicion, and that the prosecution’s handling of the case was permissible and prudent.
