High Court blocks R17 million claim from murder acquittal
The Western Cape High Court has dismissed a R17 million claim for damages filed by Vuyisa Eric Njikelana, who was wrongfully arrested and detained for 19 months on charges of murder that eventually led to his acquittal.
Image: File
The Western Cape High Court has dismissed a R17 million claim for damages filed by a man who was wrongfully arrested and detained for 19 months on charges of murder that eventually led to his acquittal.
"The plaintiff's subsequent acquittal does not, without more, establish that the prosecution was malicious. The criminal justice system sometimes fails to secure convictions despite reasonable and probable cause at inception," the judge stated during his conclusion the matter that the state was in its full right in his detention and arrest.
"The test for malicious prosecution is not whether the prosecution ultimately succeeded, but whether it was instituted without reasonable and probable cause and with malice. For the reasons already stated, the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus.
"The plaintiff abandoned his claim for unlawful arrest. His claim for unlawful detention after first appearance fails because he has not established that the decision to oppose bail was taken without reasonable and probable cause, that the bail court was misled, or that his continued detention was attributable to any wrongful conduct on the part of the defendants."
"His claim for malicious prosecution fails because he has not established that the defendants acted without reasonable and probable cause or that they acted with malice. The prosecutors had before them witness statements implicating the plaintiff, and they acted on that information in the course of their professional duties, notwithstanding the presence of contradictory material."
"In the result, the plaintiff's claims must be dismissed."
The court's judgement means that both the Minister of Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions are not liable for any damages as Vuyisa Eric Njikelana's claims were found to be unsubstantiated. The ruling took place on March 4.
The case's complexity stems from Njikelana's allegations of unlawful arrest, unlawful detention, and malicious prosecution.
Initially, he sought damages addressing all three claims, but prior to the commencement of court proceedings, he withdrew his claim for unlawful arrest, citing the expiration of the legal time limit for it.
According to court papers,the court had to consider the ongoing detention, which Njikelana argued was unjustified, and the malicious intent behind the prosecution.
The main basis of his claim hinged on the assertion that incorrect information was provided during bail hearings and that the prosecuting authorities acted with malice.
The trial began with Njikelana testifying as the sole witness in support of his case. He was confronted with inconsistencies between his statements and the evidence provided by the defendants, court papers state.
He conceded that he was close to the scene and had jumped over the deceased, directly contradicting his earlier claims, according to court papers.
According to the court documents, the background and incident took place on June 13 2015, two adult males were brutally murdered in Witsand, Atlantis, in an act of suspected mob justice.
The bodies were found covered with plastic and tyres, and one person was arrested attempting to set them alight. Captain Sishuba, the investigating officer, followed a blood trail on June 14 2015 to Madodomzi Butshingi's residence, where he safely removed Butshingi from a threatening crowd.
Butshingi later provided a warning statement allegedly implicating "Vuyisa" (the plaintiff) in the assault. Sishuba continued the investigation, receiving informant information and witness consultations.
Lacking a fixed address, he used an informant to locate the plaintiff (Njikelana). On June 23 2015, Sishuba went to his residence. After Njikelana initially attempted to evade arrest by disguising his voice, he opened the door. Sishuba arrested Njikelana without a warrant under section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, informing him of the murder charges.
Njikelana appeared in court and the State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the Schedule 6 offence, while he was out on bail for rape, attempting to evade arrest, and being a flight risk.
The State also outlined a case based on three witnesses allegedly placing him at the first crime scene and two alleging he assisted in dragging the deceased and participating in the assault, despite one statement from another person.
Bail was refused on November 23, 2015. Njikelana remained in custody until March 2017, when he was granted R1,000 bail during his trial. His trial, which commenced in March 2017, concluded with his acquittal on both murder counts in December 2017.
The court found that he was a poor, unreliable, and incredible witness due to material contradictions between his pleaded case, oral testimony, and prior statements.
Judge Francis found the defendants' ( the Minister of Police and the Directorate of Public Prosecutions) testimonies credible and consistent, particularly praising Captain Sishuba for his thoroughness during the investigation.
The judge remarked that Njikelana's contradictory evidence undermined his credibility, asserting that the prosecution's failure to secure a conviction for the murders did not amount to malicious intent.
Analysing the evidence, Judge Francis emphasised that the role of the prosecution is subject to good faith evaluation of the situation based on facts, even if circumstances changed.
Consequently, Njikelana has been ordered to pay the defendants' legal costs, reflecting the ruling on the scale of costs typically reserved for losing plaintiffs in complex cases.
"His claim for malicious prosecution fails because he has not established that the defendants acted without reasonable and probable cause or that they acted with malice," the court papers stated.
"The prosecutors had before them witness statements implicating the plaintiff, and they acted on that information in the course of their professional duties, notwithstanding the presence of contradictory material."