The appellant, Mr Frans Maropene Nakana, and the first respondent, Mr Johannes Claassens, were neighbours on adjoining farms in Polokwane and had a long-standing acrimonious relationship. In July 2015, following the removal of a boundary fence by an employee of Mr Claassens, Mr Nakana reported the matter to the South African Police Service. This led to Mr Claassens’ arrest, detention for almost three days under harsh conditions, and prosecution on charges of theft and contravention of a protection order. The charges were later withdrawn. Mr Claassens sued Mr Nakana, the Minister of Police, and a warrant officer for unlawful arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution. At trial, Mr Nakana conceded liability for malicious prosecution, and the Minister and police conceded liability for unlawful arrest and detention. The trial court dismissed the malicious prosecution claim but awarded damages for arrest and detention. On appeal, the full court awarded Mr Claassens R250 000 against Mr Nakana for malicious prosecution. Mr Nakana appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal on the quantum of that award.
The appeal was upheld. Paragraph 2.2 of the full court’s order was set aside and replaced with an order directing Mr Nakana to pay R80 000 to Mr Claassens as general damages for malicious prosecution. The application to adduce further evidence was struck from the roll with costs. No order as to costs was made in respect of the appeal.
The case clarifies the circumstances under which an appellate court may interfere with an award of general damages, particularly where the lower court relies on facts not supported by the record. It also reinforces principles relating to compromise and concession in civil litigation, confirming that liability conceded at trial cannot be reopened on appeal absent proper grounds to set aside the compromise. The judgment provides guidance on the proportional assessment of damages for malicious prosecution where a defendant’s involvement is limited.