Erasmus v MEC of Transport 2011 2 SACR 367 (ECM)
The above-mentioned case relates to a school teacher who was arrested for driving a motor vehicle without a driver’s licence in her possession. She was then taken to the Ngqeleni police station in a police vehicle. Her rights were not explained to her by the police officer. In the cells, she met some of her former students who taunted for the fact that she was educated but still ended up in the cell and she was known as a strict educator. The wrongful arrest and detention had negative effects on her reputation hence, she files for a claim.
Fubesi v Minister of Safety and Security 2010
In the case at hand, the plaintiff was wrongfully arrested by a police officer on suspicion of the theft of a firearm. The plaintiff was released after three days in detention and laid a claim against the respondent. The court contended that the test for police officers’ “reasonable suspicion” should take an objective approach. By applying this test to the facts, the applicant succeeded with his claim. The above mentioned case, similar to Erasmus v MEC of Transport, Van Der Westhuizen v Minister of Safety and Security as well as Minister of Police v Rabie proves that such occurrences, in which the public is successful in claiming from a traffic officer or policeman, are …show more content…
The Supreme Court of Appeal established that the police were protecting legal interests and were in danger when firing the shots. The court found that the actions of the police were justified because the shots had been fired in circumstances of necessity. The court agreed with both the trial court and the court a quo, therefore the appeal was dismissed. The above-mentioned case proves that as common as these occurrences are, the public too can be unsuccessful in claiming damages for the actions of a police
The above-mentioned case relates to a school teacher who was arrested for driving a motor vehicle without a driver’s licence in her possession. She was then taken to the Ngqeleni police station in a police vehicle. Her rights were not explained to her by the police officer. In the cells, she met some of her former students who taunted for the fact that she was educated but still ended up in the cell and she was known as a strict educator. The wrongful arrest and detention had negative effects on her reputation hence, she files for a claim.
Fubesi v Minister of Safety and Security 2010
In the case at hand, the plaintiff was wrongfully arrested by a police officer on suspicion of the theft of a firearm. The plaintiff was released after three days in detention and laid a claim against the respondent. The court contended that the test for police officers’ “reasonable suspicion” should take an objective approach. By applying this test to the facts, the applicant succeeded with his claim. The above mentioned case, similar to Erasmus v MEC of Transport, Van Der Westhuizen v Minister of Safety and Security as well as Minister of Police v Rabie proves that such occurrences, in which the public is successful in claiming from a traffic officer or policeman, are …show more content…
The Supreme Court of Appeal established that the police were protecting legal interests and were in danger when firing the shots. The court found that the actions of the police were justified because the shots had been fired in circumstances of necessity. The court agreed with both the trial court and the court a quo, therefore the appeal was dismissed. The above-mentioned case proves that as common as these occurrences are, the public too can be unsuccessful in claiming damages for the actions of a police