Magwabeni v Liomba

The respondent (plaintiff), an electrical contractor renting premises from the appellant (defendant), was involved in a dispute regarding unpaid work and eviction from the premises. After the appellant terminated the respondent’s services and gave notice to vacate, damage was discovered to the appellant’s electrical distribution box and water-pump. Believing the respondent to be responsible, the appellant laid a complaint with the SAPS. The respondent was arrested, detained for a week, and charged with malicious injury to property, but the charges were later withdrawn. The respondent sued the appellant for malicious prosecution and the Minister of Police for unlawful arrest and detention. The claim against the Minister was dismissed, but the court a quo found the appellant liable for malicious prosecution.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the Limpopo Local Division was set aside insofar as it related to the appellant and replaced with an order dismissing the respondent’s claim with costs.

The case reaffirms and clarifies the strict requirements for a claim of malicious prosecution in South African law, particularly the meaning of reasonable and probable cause and the necessity of proving malice. It underscores that an honest, though mistaken, belief based on reasonable grounds defeats a claim for malicious prosecution, and that police misconduct does not automatically implicate a complainant.