- A man who spent about 19 months in custody after being charged with double murder sought R17 million in damages. The High Court found police had reasonable grounds to suspect him.
- The court ruled that his continued detention followed a judicial decision refusing bail, and there was no evidence that prosecutors misled the bail court or acted without reasonable cause.
- Judge M Francis also found the plaintiff to be an unreliable witness, whose evidence contradicted his own pleadings and earlier statements.
The High Court in the Western Cape has dismissed a R17 million civil claim brought by Vuyisa Eric Njikelana, who spent nearly two years in custody awaiting trial for murder before being acquitted.
Njikelana sued the Minister of Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions for unlawful detention and malicious prosecution. He was arrested in June 2015 and remained in custody until March 2017, when he was granted bail during his criminal trial.
He was later acquitted of two counts of murder in December 2017. In the civil proceedings, he argued that police and prosecutors had acted unlawfully and maliciously, causing him to remain in prison for months without justification.
Judge M Francis rejected these claims, holding that the authorities acted on information that reasonably implicated Njikelana at the time their decisions were made.
The killings that triggered the investigation
The case arose from the violent deaths of two men in Witsand, Atlantis, in June 2015. The evidence before the court showed that the victims had been attacked by a group of people, in what appeared to be a vigilante incident.
When police arrived at the scene, they found a large crowd and what appeared to be a mound of plastic and tyres covering the victims' bodies. One individual was arrested while attempting to set the bodies alight.
The investigation was led by Captain Mlamli Sishuba, who followed a trail of blood from the crime scene to a nearby residence. There, he encountered Madodomzi Butshingi, who later gave a warning statement implicating Njikelana.
According to that statement, Butshingi told police that “Vuyisa, who was also helping, had dragged them outside the yard” and added that “Vuyisa assaulted them until they bled and he had blood on his shoes.”
Based on this information, together with further intelligence from witnesses and informants, police arrested Njikelana without a warrant on 23 June 2015.
Bail refused and detention continued
Njikelana appeared in the Atlantis Magistrates' Court the following day. Prosecutors opposed his release on bail because the charges involved two counts of murder, which fall under Schedule 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
The state relied on several factors, including witness statements placing him at the scene, concerns about witness intimidation, and the fact that he was already out on bail in a rape case.
Bail was refused after a formal application. Njikelana remained in custody until March 2017, when he was eventually granted bail during the trial.
The High Court emphasised that once an accused appears in court, continued detention ordinarily follows a judicial order.
Judge Francis explained that detention after a first court appearance can only be unlawful if the judicial decision was influenced by wrongdoing. Referring to constitutional principles, the judge noted, “the mere fact that a magistrate issued orders remanding an accused in detention is not sufficient to establish that the detention was lawful.”
However, the court found no evidence that the bail court had been misled or that prosecutors had acted improperly.
Plaintiff’s evidence undermined his case
Njikelana testified that he had merely witnessed the community assault briefly and had not participated in it. He also alleged that police stormed into his home and arrested him without explanation.
Under cross-examination, however, several aspects of his evidence changed.
He conceded that police had knocked on the door and that he initially told them he was not home before opening it. He also acknowledged that the investigating officer informed him he was being arrested for murder.
The court noted that his testimony contained significant contradictions when compared with his pleadings and earlier statements.
Judge Francis found that the plaintiff was “a poor witness” whose evidence was “laced with inaccuracies, unreliable, and lacking in credibility.”
The court further observed that his account of the events shifted during testimony. At one stage, he admitted to being close to the assault and jumping over one of the victims, contradicting his earlier claim that he had not come close to them.
Why the unlawful detention claim failed
Njikelana had abandoned his claim for unlawful arrest because it had prescribed. His case therefore, focused on whether his detention after his first court appearance was unlawful.
The court concluded that police had reasonable grounds to suspect him at the time of his arrest. Investigators had a statement directly implicating him, as well as other information suggesting his involvement.
Judge Francis explained that the test for reasonable suspicion must be assessed at the time the arrest was made, not with the benefit of hindsight.
“The test is applied at the time of arrest, with the information then available,” the judge said. “Later developments do not retrospectively render an initially reasonable suspicion unreasonable.”
The court also rejected the argument that prosecutors had misled the bail court.
The evidence showed that Njikelana did not have a fixed address because his shack had been demolished, that he was out on bail in a rape matter, and that he knew several witnesses in the case.
No malicious prosecution
Njikelana also claimed that prosecutors had acted maliciously in pursuing the murder case.
To succeed, he had to prove that the prosecution acted without reasonable and probable cause and with intent to harm him.
Judge Francis held that this standard had not been met. Prosecutors had relied on witness statements placing Njikelana at the scene, including statements suggesting he participated in the assault.
The fact that the prosecution later struggled with witnesses and ultimately failed did not make the decision to prosecute unlawful.
Judge Francis explained that “the criminal justice system sometimes fails to secure convictions despite reasonable and probable cause at inception.”
The judge also emphasised that prosecutors must not be deterred from pursuing cases where evidence suggests a person may have committed a serious offence.
The court’s conclusion
After considering the evidence and the legal principles governing unlawful detention and malicious prosecution, the court concluded that Njikelana had failed to prove his claims.
Judge Francis stated that the plaintiff had not shown that prosecutors acted without reasonable grounds or with malicious intent.
“The plaintiff has not discharged the onus of establishing that the defendants acted without reasonable and probable cause or with malice,” the judgment concluded.
The court dismissed the claim and ordered Njikelana to pay the defendants’ legal costs on Scale C.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
