Minister of Police v Van der Watt and Another

The respondent, Pierre Christo Van der Watt, was arrested and detained following a domestic violence incident involving police on 3 March 2013, during which he sustained injuries. After his release, he instituted a delictual action against the Minister of Police for unlawful arrest, detention and assault. The Minister defended the action and instructed the State Attorney to resist liability. Despite express instructions to do so, the State Attorney and counsel concluded two settlement agreements with Van der Watt’s legal representatives—one on liability (apportioning 50% liability to the Minister) and one on quantum—which were made orders of the Gauteng Division of the High Court in 2015 and 2017 respectively. The Minister later sought rescission of both consent orders under Uniform Rule 42(1)(a), alternatively on the basis of iustus error, contending that the State Attorney and counsel lacked authority to settle.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The Registrar was directed to forward the judgment to the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and the Legal Practice Council for investigation into the conduct of the State Attorney and counsel.

The case reaffirms the doctrine of apparent authority in South African law, particularly in relation to the State Attorney and legal representatives binding organs of state. It underscores the finality and enforceability of consent orders, the limited scope of rescission under Rule 42(1)(a), and clarifies that internal lack of authority does not, absent fraud, invalidate settlements relied upon by innocent opposing parties. The judgment also highlights accountability mechanisms for state legal representatives.