- Both sides admitted they were unprepared for trial in a decade-old wrongful arrest damages claim.
- Judge Wright criticised the late defence briefing and found the plaintiffs’ pleadings and discovery to be incomplete.
- Police and NPA ordered to pay plaintiffs’ wasted costs related to the merits, capped at five days’ preparation.
The High Court in Johannesburg has removed a decade-old civil damages claim from the trial roll after finding that neither side was properly prepared to proceed, despite the matter having been allocated trial dates two years in advance.
Mmbudzeni Selby Ramudzuli and six other plaintiffs are suing the Minister of Police and the National Prosecuting Authority for damages arising from alleged wrongful arrest, unlawful detention and malicious prosecution.
Judge G Wright delivered judgment on 16 February 2026 after the matter, set down for two weeks, could not proceed.
Defendants not ready to proceed
When the case was called, counsel for the defendants candidly informed the court that they were not ready for trial. The delay was attributed to the State Attorney’s briefing system, which requires advocates to tender for a brief before a final decision is made and funds are secured.
Defence counsel had only come on record the previous Friday afternoon. Given the volume of documentation and the number of witnesses involved, the court was told that there had been insufficient time to read the papers, consult, and determine which witnesses would be required.
Judge Wright recorded that the delay in briefing counsel was “to be regretted” but noted that counsel had acted honestly and professionally in explaining the defendants’ position. After debate in court, both sides agreed that the matter should be postponed. The only dispute concerned the appropriate order as to wasted costs.
Plaintiffs are also not trial-ready
Although the defendants tendered one day’s wasted costs on Scale A, the plaintiffs sought costs on the attorney and client scale, including the fees of five expert witnesses and the travel expenses of three plaintiffs who had travelled from different parts of the country. The court, however, found that the plaintiffs were also not in a position to proceed.
Judge Wright pointed out that transcripts of the bail proceedings had not been discovered and were not available. He further observed that aspects of the plaintiffs’ claims, particularly those relating to loss of earnings, had not been pleaded with sufficient particularity to comply with Rule 18(10). Discovery was also described as incomplete in relation to documents relevant to proving quantum.
In a decisive finding, the judge held that even if the defendants had been ready, the trial could not have proceeded due to the plaintiffs’ own lack of readiness.
He expressed hesitation about awarding the wasted costs of expert witnesses where those costs related only to quantum, noting that it would be unfair to burden the defendants with such expenses at this stage, particularly if the claims were ultimately dismissed on their merits.
Matter postponed sine die
The court postponed the matter sine die, meaning it was removed from the roll without a new trial date being set and will only be re-enrolled once both parties are properly prepared to proceed.
The defendants were ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the wasted costs of the plaintiffs on a party and party Scale C. Those costs are limited to issues relating to the merits of the case and exclude quantum. The order caps recoverable preparation costs at a maximum of five days for one attorney and one counsel.
Judge Wright also observed that the case may ultimately require at least five weeks of trial time and that some witnesses may testify in languages other than English, underscoring the scale and complexity of the litigation.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
