Minister of Safety and Security v Pieter Samuel Theo Slabbert

On 5 February 2005, Constable Magoxo and a colleague were on patrol in Klipplaat when they encountered the plaintiff's bakkie parked in the middle of Main Street, obstructing traffic. The plaintiff approached them and appeared drunk. Despite Magoxo's request that he get a sober driver, the plaintiff attempted to drive. Magoxo arrested him for being drunk and disorderly in a public street. The plaintiff resisted arrest and was subdued with pepper spray and force before being taken to the police station and detained overnight. When the plaintiff's wife arrived and requested his release, Magoxo declined because the plaintiff was still intoxicated. The police had a practice of detaining suspects on drunk and disorderly charges for at least four hours to sober up. The plaintiff was released at 07h15 the next morning with a notice to appear in court. The charge was subsequently withdrawn. The plaintiff sued for wrongful arrest and detention, assault and malicious prosecution.

• Whether the trial court erred in finding part of the detention unlawful based on issues not pleaded or fully canvassed at trial
• Whether the continued detention after the wife's request for release was justified
• Whether the police were obliged to release the plaintiff into his wife's care despite his continued intoxication
• The proper role of pleadings in defining issues for trial
• The onus on police to justify arrest and detention

The appeal was upheld with costs including costs of two counsel. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the plaintiff's claims with costs.

A trial court cannot found liability on issues falling outside the pleadings unless those issues were fully canvassed by both sides at trial in the sense that the court was expected to pronounce upon them. The purpose of pleadings is to define the issues for the other party and the court. A party has a duty to allege material facts in pleadings and cannot plead one case and seek to establish a different case at trial. Where a person is lawfully arrested and detained for being drunk and disorderly, the continued detention remains justified unless there is evidence that the person has sobered up sufficiently and that release would be safe and appropriate. The fact that a family member requests release does not automatically render continued detention unlawful where the detainee remains intoxicated and potentially dangerous.

Harms DP observed that the right to dignity and freedom and security of person are core constitutional values, and any arrest and detention constitutes a prima facie infringement of these rights, requiring justification by police. However, the onus on police to justify detention arises only after the issue is properly raised by the aggrieved person. The Deputy President also commented that the implication that police should wake sleeping detainees to repeatedly check their state of inebriation and release them in the middle of the night appears farfetched. He noted that cases by ambush are not countenanced in South African law. The court referenced the decision in Nelson v Minister of Safety and Security, noting it would be irresponsible for police to release drunk and disorderly persons unless certain they were no longer dangerous, as such persons are expected to revert to previous patterns of behavior once police supervision ceases.

This case is significant in South African law for clarifying the fundamental importance of pleadings in defining the issues for trial in delictual claims against the state. It reinforces that courts cannot decide cases on grounds not pleaded unless fully canvassed at trial, even in constitutional rights cases involving arrest and detention. The case also provides guidance on when continued detention of intoxicated persons is justified, balancing individual liberty rights with public safety concerns and the practical responsibilities of police officers. It illustrates that while the right to dignity and freedom are core constitutional values, police need not release intoxicated detainees unless there is proper evidence that release would be safe and appropriate.