IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA

DELETE WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE

[l ] REPORTABLE: 'Jfe'!,/ NO

[2 ] OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:

'f£S / NO

[3] REVISEDV n _ DATE ~ ~1 /f SIGNATURE~

In the matter between :

MN MAILA

and

MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY

SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE

JUDGMENT

LOUW, J

CASE NO: 58576/2011

Pla intiff

First Defendant

Second Defendant

2

[1] The plaintiff has sued the defendants for unlawful arrest. He alleges in

his particulars of claim that on 16 February 2011 and at Mogaladi Village

he was arrested without a warrant by Brigadier Moenyane, a member of

the South African Police Service (the second defendant) and various other

policemen and that he was locked up in the back of a police van and

remained so locked up until the early hours of the next morning. He further

alleges that at approximately 02h20 on the morning of 17 February 2011,

he was detained at the Nebo police station at the instance of Constable

Phahlane and that he was arbitrarily deprived of his freedom and detained

for a total of three days.

[2] The defendants admit that the plaintiff was arrested without a warrant

on 16 February 2011 at around 22h00 at Mogaladi Village by members of

the South African Police Service (SAPS), but plead that the arrest of the

plaintiff was lawful and justified in terms of the provisions of the Criminal

Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The defendants further admit that the plaintiff

was, pursuant to his arrest, detained by Constable Phahlane at the Nebo

police station on 17 February at around 02h20. The defendants plead that

the plaintiff was arrested for the offense of interfering with the police in the

performance of their duties.

[3] The plaintiff alleges in his particulars of claim that he was at no stage

brought before a court to answer any allegation following his arrest and

that, on 18 February 2011, a policeman who identified himself as Moenyane

3

informed him that he was free and may go home. The plaintiff claims that

he suffered damage in the amount of Rl million as a result of the alleged

unlawful arrest. These allegations are denied by the defendants. By

agreement between the parties, an order was made that the quantum of

the plaintiff's claim be separated from all other issues and be postponed

sine die. It was common cause that the defendants bore the onus to prove

that the arrest of the plaintiff was lawful.

( 4 J Brigadier Moenyane testified for the defendants. He testified that he

has 34 years service in the police. He is stationed in Groblersdal and was

the cluster commander of eleven police stations, of which Nebo was one.

On the evening of 16 February 2011 he received a telephone call from the

station commander of the Nebo police station, Lieut. Col. Mashiloane, who

informed him that the community of Mogaladi Village were enraged about

the body of a child which had been found in the veld. Brig. Moenyane said

that in such unusual situations, the police launch corrective action. His

station commanders were aware of his knowledge of negotiation skills and

conflict resolution. Lieut. Col. Mashiloane informed him that he had

dispatched two police officers to investigate, but that the community would

not allow them to do house to house searches. The community suspected

that foreigners could have been responsible for the child's death, and had

blocked roads with trees and branches. He requested Brig. Moenyane to

come to the scene.

4

[5] The distance from Groblersdal to Mogaladi Village is approximately 60

km. Brig. Moenyane received a telephone call at about 20h00 and arrived

at Mogaldi Village at about 20h30. On his arrival, he found that the road

leading to where he was heading was blocked and that there were about

600 community members standing around. He managed to find the station

commander amongst the crowd . He told the station commander that the

SAPS did not have enough manpower for the situation and that the best

would be to have a meeting with the community with the aim of calming

them down . The situation was tense, and he said that in many cases where

people gather in that manner, casualties would result. He and the station

commander decided to request the local counselor to bring the people

together for a meeting.

[6] The local counselor did as requested, and it took about 10 minutes for

the people of the village to get together and for Brig. Moenyane to drive to

the venue, using a marked police vehicle. Brig. Moenyane introduced

himself to the people and told them from where he was and that he was

there for them to brief him about their problems. The community was

enraged and insisted that the two police officers that had been dispatched

to do house to house searches do so in the presence of the community .

They were saying that the police officers should help them flush out all

foreigners because t hey believed that the foreigners had perpetrated the

murder.

5

[7] After Brig. Moenyane had introduced himself and told the gathering

what he was there for, but before he could start talking to them, a man

stood up and the community started making a noise. The man said that the

police were undermining traffic personnel. Brig. Moenyane looked around,

but did not see any traffic police. The man uttered vulgar words, alleging

that police officers with members of the community had searched his home

without a search warrant. In a written statement which Brig. Moenyane

later made, he said that the man appeared to be drunk. He confirmed in

cross-examination that that was his impression. Brig. Moenyane addressed

the man and said that he should give the police a chance to complete what

they were busy doing and that they would thereafter take his grievances

further. The man did not calm down, and continued saying that the police

force were not respecting traffic police. Members of the community were

becoming infuriated. The man wouldn't listen, and continued uttering

swearwords. He would not give Brig. Moenyane a chance to complete what

he was doing. Brig. Moenyane was afraid that the situation could get out of

hand and that pol ice officers might use live ammunition. He said that if

police failed to calm the community down, it may have led to a situation

where the community attacked the police, in which event the police may

have been compel led to use live ammunition.

[8] Brig . Moenyane stepped closer to the man and requested him to

produce his appointment card in the event that he was a traffic officer. The

man just continued swearing at him, saying that the police were

6

undermining him and that nothing would come of their efforts. After

reprimanding him for the third time, Brig. Moenyane told the man that he

was interfering with the police in the exercise of their duties, which was not

permissible. The man continued swearing, saying that he was not afraid of

being jailed. Brig. Moenyane told the man that the members of the SAPS

were not able to carry out their duties and that he would be arrested. Brig.

Moenyane then mandated Constable Phahlane to arrest the man and take

him to the police station so that they could continue with the meeting. The

man resisted arrest and other police officers had to assist putting him in

the police van.

[9] Brig. Moenyane said that the situation which prevailed compelled him

to act as he did to get matters under control and that the steps which he

took were reasonable and in accordance with s 40(1)(j) of the Criminal

Procedure Act 51 of 1977. Section 40(l)(j) provides that a peace officer may

without warrant arrest any person who wilfully obstructs him in the

execution of his duty. Brig. Moenyane confirmed that he is a peace officer.

[10] After the man's arrest, the situation calmed down. The community

wanted to listen to what Brig. Moenyane said. After explaining to them the

processes which had to be followed, they no longer insisted going to

foreigners ' houses. The man who had been arrested, who turned out to be

the plaintiff, was taken to the Nebo police station. Brig. Moenyane was

satisfied that the situation had been diffused and left at about 22h30. He

7

did not go to the police station as there is a station commander in whose

area of jurisdiction the arrest was made. He is aware that all charges

against the plaintiff were withdrawn on 18 February 2011.

[11] The plaintiff was appointed as a traffic police officer in 2009. He

testified that on the day in question he was at Groblersdal with his cousin

John Molopa. They were busy watching soccer on television when his cousin

received a telephone call. The cousin said that it was their mother who

phoned and that she wanted to see them at Mogaladi because the

community of Mogaladi had returned again. Mr. Molopa explained when he

later testified that the plaintiff's mother had died when he was still young

and that the plaintiff had grown up under the care and guardianship of Mr.

Molopa's mother and that the plaintiff called her mother. They then drove

to Mogaladi. On their arrival at their mother's house, she told them that the

community had been there and had conducted a search of their homestead.

She also told them that the community had gone from there to converge

and hold a meeting. The plaintiff and his cousin decided to go to the

community to inquire why they had conducted a search at their homestead.

[12] The community had converged in an open area in the proximity of the

school. Upon their arrival, they found some 18 to 20 police officers who had

converged apart from the community. It appeared that the group of

policeman were being addressed by their senior. The plaintiff then went to

8

where the community had gathered. His cousin, who is a police officer,

joined the other police officers. The two groups were 20 to 30 m apart.

[13] The plaintiff's intention when he approached the community was to

make them realise the consequences of such a gathering. He said that the

prevailing situation was volatile because a child was missing which had

triggered the community to go to their homestead. The community was

furious . Some of the members of the community gave him a hearing, but

others didn't. To those who were listening, some of whom he knew, he said

that if there is a particular problem in a community, there was a way of

addressing it and that they should not engage in activities which might

result in some of them going to jail. He said that the whole group of the

community consisted of about 80 to 100 people while the ones who were

listening to him were about 30 or slightly more.

[14] The plaintiff testified that while he was talking to this group, Brig.

Moenyane emerged from the group of police officers and came towards

him. When he arrived, he asked the plaintiff who he was to talk to the

community as he, Brig. Moenyane, was the one who was supposed to talk

to them. Before the plaintiff could respond, Brig. Moenyane ordered another

police officer to lock him up in a van which was standing in close proximity

to the community group. The police officer, who was leaning against the

van then came to the plaintiff, grabbed him by the belt and took him

towards the van. The plaintiff said that he co-operated with the police and

9

complied with the instruction to get into the van. The door was closed and

no one came to talk to him.

[15] The plaintiff said he was able to see what was happening outside the

van and that the community and the police dispersed between 20 and 30

minutes after his arrest. The prevailing situation outside was calm during

the 20 to 30 minutes that he was inside the van. He said that no one was

addressing the community during those 20 to 30 minutes and that Brig.

Monyane had returned to the group of police officers. After the community

and the police had dispersed, only the plaintiff and the police officer in the

van were left on the scene where they remained for almost 2 hours. They

left the scene at about 01h00. The plaintiff was taken to the Nebo police

station which is approximately 40 km from where he was arrested.

[16] At the police station, another policeman took him from the van to the

charge office. There his rights were read to him. He was told to take off his

belt and shoelaces. The firearm, cell phone and wallet in his possession

were taken to a place where they were recorded and kept. The plaintiff was

referred to a document with the heading "Notice of Rights in terms of the

Constitution" in which his particulars were inserted and which he signed.

The document recorded that the plaintiff was detained at 02h00 on 17

February 2017, with which the plaintiff agreed. The plaintiff thereafter said

that he was not informed of his rights. He then said that his rights were

read out to him, but not in Sepedi but in English . The document which he

10

signed, however, recorded that he was informed of his rights in Sepedi. He

was then locked up in a cell.

[17] The plaintiff testified that he was taken to court with other detainees

shortly after 10h00 on 18 February 2017. There the detainees were placed

in a particular room at the back of the court where they were fetched one

by one. At about 11h00, the chains with which the plaintiff had been

chained to another detainee were removed and he was told that he was to

be released as he was innocent. He returned to the police station to fetch

his belongings and then went straight home.

[18] The plaintiff testified that he was born and bred in Mogaladi and that

he had attended school and grew up there. The community knew him to be

a traffic officer. He was the only traffic officer in the area and was the first

person of the community to have become a traffic officer. He said that the

community had come to their homestead regarding their concerns about

the child twice, if not three times, to conduct a search.

[19] In cross-examination, the plaintiff said that the searches had been

conducted in a space of two weeks and that they, referring to himself, his

cousin and their mother, regarded the searches as having been triggered

by a suspicion because members of the community had consulted with a

witch doctor who had said that the incident had taken place at a tavern.

His mother runs a tavern, and the witch doctor said that that was where

11

the incident took place and that the child had disappeared in the tavern.

The tavern was on the same premises as the homestead. Some members

of the community had been aggressive towards his mother and she had

been scared and confused.

[20] The plaintiff further testified in cross-examination that after the

community came to his mother's house the previous time, he told her that

she should report it to the police if they came again. He said that when they

came again, the community left to converge elsewhere and that the police

were coincidently also there. His intention was to confront the people and

to get the names of the leaders of the community so that the matter could

be escalated to the police. He didn't know who had called the police, but he

was relieved that they were there because they were peace officers, as was

his cousin. He understood that the police came to assess the situation. He

wanted to address the community to involve the police. He was not angry

but was dissatisfied. He compared his position to a classroom where

another child gets more marks than oneself while you know that you are

better. This is a clear indication that the plaintiff was of the view that he

was in a better position to deal with the matter than the police themselves

and that the police were infringing on what he believed to be his right to

first address the community.

[21] In regard to those members of the community who did not want to

listen to the plaintiff, he said in cross-examination that those members used

12

words which were not acceptable to him, saying that he was not tel ling

them anything and tellin~ him that the child went missing in a tavern which

belonged to his mother. He sa id that he was relieved to see the police as

they were peace officers. He was then asked why he did not approach the

police officers instead of the community. He said that it was because it

wasn't the first time tha·t the community had gone to conduct a search at

his homestead and he wanted to hear what their problem was and

thereafter go to the police. Because they were members of the community

and the community had r-iot done any damage or harm, he could, after they

had spoken to the community, call the police to address their leaders and

his mother. He said that in the community they have their own modus

operandi and that the community shou ld first advise each other before

going further. He was asked why he did not let the police take over and do

the job because they are peace officers. He said that he did not prevent

anyone from doing his duties but that his cousin went to talk to the police

and he went to speak to the community. He said that, had he spoken to

the community and come to finality at the end of the discussion, he would

know who the leaders of the community were and that the police would

then come into the picture. This again confirms that the plaintiff did not

want the police to address the community before he had himself done so.

He was unaware that Brig. Monyane had instructed the station commander

to request the commun ity leaders to gather the members of the

community.

13

[22] It is clear from the aforegoing evidence of the plaintiff that he wanted

to resolve the situation in his own way before allowing the police to address

the community.

[23] The plaintiff denied that he disrupted Brig. Moenyane when he tried to

address the community and that Brig. Moenyane reprimanded him several

times to keep quiet. He said he only saw Brig. Moenyane once when he

came to him and ordered a police officer to put him into the police van while

the plaintiff was talking to some members of the community. The plaintiff

said if a person had come to him and requested him to move away in order

to address the people, he would have moved away. In light of the plaintiff's

earlier evidence of him first wanting to address the community and finalise

the discussion before the police should be allowed to address the

community, this evidence of the plaintiff is so improbable that it must be

untrue.

[24] The plaintiff's cousin, Mr. John Molopa, is a sergeant in the SAPS

stationed at Groblersdal police station, which is the same police station

from which Brig. Monyane performs his duties. Sgt. Molopa's evidence from

the time he and the plaintiff left Groblersdal to the time that they arrived

at the place where the community had gathered corresponded with that of

the plaintiff. He also testified that when they arrived there, he went to the

group of about 20 police officers who were standing separately from the

members of the community. He said that the situation was calm and that

14

no threats were being made. He greeted the police officers, some of whom

were known to him by name, including Brig. Monyane whom he knew as

the overall cluster commander for the nine police stations that resorted

under the Groblersdal cluster.

[25] Sgt. Molopa testified that Brig. Monyane was not aware that the house

where it was alleged that the child had disappeared was his home. Sgt.

Molopa explained to Brig. Monyane that he was therefore also a victim. The

police officers then wanted to know from him what help they could give

him. He said that he ju~t wanted to know what the problem was and how

they solved it. The police officers said he could see for himself that the

members of the community were calm, and that everything was under

control. There was just a general discussion between the police officers

themselves and between members of the community themselves. Everyone

left after about five minutes.

[26] Sgt. Molopa further testified that while he was still there with the police

officers, he saw the Brig. Moenyane walking towards the group of

community members. The distance between the police officers and the

community was approximately 20 m. All that he heard, was Brig. Moenyane

saying "Arrest this man". There was a police van parked next to where the

community was standing with a police officer leaning against it. He saw that

police officer walking towards the community and grab the plaintiff by the

belt. He took the plaintiff to the van, opened its door and put the plaintiff

15

into the van. He was asked whether anything was happening at the time

when the plaintiff was grabbed by the belt. He said that he didn't seem as

if anything was happening, save for the voice which he heard. Everything

was calm. He did not hear or see anything happening between the arresting

officer and the plaintiff except for the plaintiff being put into the van.

[27] Sgt. Molopa was asked what the cause of the arrest could have been.

He said that there was no reason for the arrest and that he did not make

any inquiries why the plaintiff had been arrested. The reasons he gave why

he did not make any inquiries was because he and the plaintiff had been

victims of the search that had been conducted by the community at their

homestead and because he respected the decision of Brig. Moenyane. He

said that after the plaintiff was locked inside the van, everything seemed

under control and the members of the community and the police officers

dispersed after a few minutes. When he left in his car the plaintiff was still

inside the van.

[28] Sgt. Molopa denied that the plaintiff was disrupting the meeting . He

also denied that the plaintiff appeared to be drunk and that the plaintiff told

Brig. Moenyane that he was talking shit as was mentioned in a statement

made by Brig Moenyane. He said that there was just a general discussion

and that there was no opportunity for Brig. Moenyane to address the

community because people were leaving. He did not see any steps taken

by Brig. Moenyane to show that he wanted to address the community.

16

(29] In cross-examination, Sgt. Molopa said that Brig. Moenyane was not

a malicious person and that he was like a father and brother to him. He

was asked whether he asked Brig. Moenyane why he was there. He said

that he was there to attend to the matter of the killing of a child. He said

that Brig. Moenyane was not aware that it was his home that had been

searched, but that he said that they had spoken to the people, that the

people were now ca lm and that there was no longer problem. There was no

official address of the community and the police were just discussing

general matters amongst themselves. He was asked whether Brig.

Moenyane addressed the community. He said that he saw him proceeding

to the community, but that he couldn't tell what the discussion was about.

He did not see his cousin addressing the community and only saw him when

he was taken to the pol ice van.

[30] Sgt. Molopa was again asked in cross-examination what Brig.

Moenyane said he was there for. His answer was that he never gave him

an explanation. This was contrary to his earlier evidence when he said that

Brig. Moenyane had sa id that he was there to attend to the matter of the

killing of a child.

[31] Sgt. Molopa said in cross-examination that Brig . Moenyane moved

from where he and the other police officers were to the community. He

didn't know his reason or what he was going to say to them. The police

17

officers remained talking to each other about general things when they

suddenly heard the loud voice "arrest him". In his evidence in chief, he did

not make mention of the fact that he and the other police officers remained

talking to each other during the time that Brig. Moenyane went over to the

community. Some time must have passed while they were talking to each

other and before they heard the loud voice. His evidence does therefore

not exclude the possibility that there was a discussion between Brig.

Moenyane and the plaintiff during which Brig. Moenyane reprimanded the

plaintiff not to interfere when he was trying to address the community. In

further cross-examination, Sgt. Molopa said that there was no compulsion

for him to see his cousin addressing the community or for him to see what

Brig. Moenyane was doing as the situation was calm. He confirmed that his

focus was on the other police officers. He could not comment on why Brig.

Moenyane would have singled his cousin out to arrest him. In re­

examination, he again said that he did not take full notice of what was going

on because the situation was calm.

[32] The evidence of Sgt. Molopa that the situation was calm stands in

direct contradiction to the evidence of the plaintiff that the situation was

volatile and that the community was furious. It is also clear that his

attention was focused on the other police officers and that he was not aware

of what was taking place at the group of members of the community. His

evidence does therefore not corroborate anything which the plaintiff said in

regard to what transpired between the plaintiff and Brig. Monyane. What

18

must therefore be considered are the versions of Brig. Moenyane on the

one hand and that of the plaintiff on the other, which versions are mutually

destructive. The manner in which courts deal with mutually destructive

evidence was stated as follows in Stellenbosch Farmers Winery Group Ltd

& Ano v Martell et Cie & Others 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA) para 5:

"The technique generally employed by courts in resolving factual disputes of this

nature may conveniently be summarised as follows. To come to a conclusion on

the disputed issues a court must make findings on (a) the credibility of the various

factual witnesses; (b) their reliability; and (c) the probabilities. As to (a), the

court's finding on the credibility of a particular witness will depend on its

impression about the veracity of the witness. That in turn will depend on a variety

of subsidiary factors, not necessarily in order of importance, such as (i) the

witness' candour and demeanour in the witness-box, (ii) his bias, latent and

blatant, (iii) internal contradictions in his evidence, (iv) external contradictions

with what was pleaded or put on his behalf, or with established fact or with his

own extracurial statements or actions, (v) the probability or improbability of

particular aspects of his version, (vi) the calibre and cogency of his performance

compared to that of other witnesses testifying about the same incident or events.

As to (b), a witness' reliability will depend, apart from the factors mentioned under

(a)(ii), (iv) and (v) above, on (i) the opportunities he had to experience or observe

the event in question and (ii) the quality, integrity and independence of his recall

thereof. As to (c), this necessitates an analysis and evaluation of the probability

or improbability of each party's version on each of the disputed issues. In the light

of its assessment of (a), (b) and (c) the court will then, as a final step, determine

19

whether the party burdened with the onus of proof has succeeded in discharging

it. The hard case, which will doubtless be the rare one, occurs when a court's

credibility findings compel it in one direction and its evaluation of the general

probabilities in another. The more convincing the former, the less convincing will

be the latter. But when all factors are equipoised probabilities prevail."

[33] As far as the evidence of Brig. Moenyane is concerned, I found him to

be a good witness. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that Brig . Moenyane

contradicted himself when he testified that the plaintiff was taken to the

police station immediately after his arrest, whereas he said in a later written

statement that the plaintiff was kept in the police van while he was

addressing the community members and that he thereafter went to the

plaintiff who was locked up in the police van. I am not sure whether there

was in fact such a contradiction, or whether it was the result of how the

evidence of Brig . Monyane was interpreted, as the two statements were

made immediately after each other during cross-examination. According to

my notes, Brig. Monyane, through the interpreter, said that, after finishing

his address, the plaintiff "was already taken away". Immediately

thereafter, he sa id that, after he addressed the community, he approached

the plaintiff at the van and asked him for his appointment, which I

understood to refer to the pla intiff's appointment as a traffic police officer.

He was then asked where the plaintiff was after completion of the meeting,

to which Brig. Moenyane answered that he was in the van. He was then

asked why he did not release the plaintiff after the meeting. His answer

20

was that it was impossible because they could not communicate with each

other.

[34] With regard to the evidence of the plaintiff,

I have referred to the contradictions in his evidence about whether his

constitutional rights were read out to him at the police station. I have also

referred to the plaintiff's evidence that if someone had come to him and

requested him to move away in order to address the community, he would

have moved away, which evidence cannot be true in light of his earlier

evidence that he first wanted to address the community and finalise the

discussion before the police would be allowed to address the community. I

have further referred to the contradiction between the evidence of the

plaintiff and that of his cousin Sgt. Molopa about whether the situation

where the community had gathered was volatile or calm. Sgt. Molopa 's

evidence that everyone dispersed five minutes after he had arrived is also

contradicted by the evidence of the plaintiff who said that the police

dispersed 20 to 30 minutes after he had been locked up in the police van.

Sgt. Molopa also contradicted himself by first saying that Brig. Moenyane

gave no explanation why he was there and later saying that Brig. Moenyane

said he was there about the kill ing of child.

[35] In my view, the overwhelming probabilities are that the plaintiff was

arrested because he made it impossible for Brig. Moenyane to address the

community. There is no logical explanation why Brig. Moenyane would have

21

ordered the arrest of the plaintiff if the plaintiff had not acted in the manner

as testified by Brig . Moenyane. I find it completely improbable that he wou ld

have ordered the arrest of the plaintiff simply because the plaintiff was

talking to the community and without Brig . Moenyane giving him any

warning, as was testified by the plaintiff. It is equally improbable that the

arrest would have taken place if the situation was calm and there was just

a general discussion taking place between the members of the community

amongst themselves and the police officers amongst themselves, as was

testified by Sgt. Mo Iopa.

[35] It was submitted during argument by counsel for the plaintiff that in

order to rely on s 40(l)(j) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant has

to prove that there was a physical aspect to the plaintiff's interference in

the execution of the duties of the police, although it may not be necessary

that any force or violence should be used. Counsel relied in this regard on

the judgment of Nochumsohn AJ in Devenish v Minister of Safety and

Security1 which referred to the judgment in R v Weyer2 in which it was so

was held. The court in Weyer was not dealing with a provision of the

Criminal Procedure Act, but with s 26ter(a) of Act 14 of 1912 in terms

whereof it was unlawful to obstruct, hinder or interfere with a member of

the South African Police Force in the execution of his duty. The facts in

Weyer were that Mr. Weyer, the appellant, had refused to stand aside from

1 Unreported, GJ case no. 31321 /20 12 2 1958 (3) SA 467 (GWLD) at 472A

22

the scene of an accident after being requested to do so by a member of the

police force, thereby preventing the police from taking photographs of the

scene of the accident,. The court found that a physical element was present

when he stood in front in front of the camera and refused to step aside. In

my view, this case is rather against the plaintiff that in his favour. The

plaintiff's conduct which prevented Brig. Moenyane from addressing the

community, although no force or violence was used, had a physical

element, being his verbal abuse directed at Brig . Moenyane which resulted

in him being unable to address the community. 3

[36] In the result, I find that the arrest of the plaintiff was lawful. The

plaintiff's claim is accordingly dismissed with costs .

Counsel for plaintiff: Adv. U B Makuya.

Instructed by: Mashore Matlala Attorneys, Pretoria.

Counsel for defendants: Adv. M M Mokad ikoa-Chauke.

Instructed by : The State Attorney, Pretoria

3 See also S v Makhathini 1975 (2) SA 690 (N).