The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has dealt a blow to the minister of police by removing an appeal from its roll, clearing the way for a man who was wrongfully imprisoned to receive R2 million in compensation.
The case stems from the arrest and detention of Mzondile Andries Thure, who spent two years and one month behind bars before charges against him were withdrawn due to lack of evidence.
In October 2022, the high court awarded Thure R2 million in general damages after finding his arrest and continued incarceration unlawful.
He had initially been denied bail following his first court appearance.
Police miniser Missed appeal deadlines
After an initial failed attempt to secure leave to appeal, the minister successfully obtained special leave from the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in September 2023.
However, the notice of appeal was only filed in February 2024 – well beyond the prescribed timeframe – meaning the appeal had already lapsed by operation of law.
In response, the minister sought condonation from the high court to extend the 20-day deadline for filing the appeal.
ALSO READ: North West man wins R80k payout after unlawful arrest and police detention
The minister’s legal team attributed the delay to an administrative oversight, stating that the SCA’s order had been sent in October 2023, but only came to the attorney’s attention just over three months later.
According to the lawyer, the email sent by the office of the State Attorney in Bloemfontein had been lost in “a trail of spams emails”.
Despite the minister arguing that the appeal had reasonable prospects of success, Thure’s legal representatives rejected this claim, contending that no sufficient cause had been shown for the delay.
They further questioned the credibility of the explanation, highlighted the absence of technical evidence.
Thure’s attorney also highlighted that both sender and recipient operate within the same Department of Justice systems.
Gauteng High Court judgment
Judge Elmarie van der Schyff, supported by two concurring judges, emphasised that reinstating an appeal requires justification “upon good cause shown”.
She said the court was “flummoxed” when the minister’s legal representative requested a postponement from the bar on the day of the hearing on 18 Mach 2026 – a request that was denied.
The court also highlighted procedural shortcomings, including the failure to file heads of argument in the condonation application.
While van der Schyff accepted that the email may have landed in a spam folder, she found that key questions remained unanswered.
READ MORE: Saps ‘drowning in litigation’ as billions lost to unlawful arrests and assaults
“Who was the primary recipient to whom the email from the Bloemfontein office was addressed, as the deponent to the condonation application was merely cc-ed on the email, and what was his or her role in this matter and in the prosecution of the appeal?
“Why did the attorney not check the spam folder frequently if there was an indication of unread mail in the folder, as there inevitably must have been?” the 23 March judgment reads.
“What steps were taken between 6 February 2024 and 21 February 2024 when the existence of the SCA-order was noted, and the notice of appeal and condonation application were filed?
“The unanswered questions render the State Attorney’s explanation for the delay inadequate. It renders the explanation sparse and lacking in particularity,” van der Schyff continued.
Court slams ‘lackadaisical’ conduct
The court took a dim view of how the matter had been handled, pointing to the missed deadlines and poor preparation.
Van der Schyff remarked that there appeared to be “a lack of commitment” from the minister and his legal team.
“The applicant seems to approach this litigation in a very lackadaisical manner,” Van der Schyff said.
She added: “The applicant did not get its affairs in order and sought a postponement on the day the matter was to be heard.”
Furthermore, the court highlighted that Thure has been waiting since 2022 to receive the awarded damages, and that continued delays had unfairly prejudiced him.
Appeal struck off the roll
The judgment also noted that the minister’s chances of succeeding on appeal were “slim” and “at best, weak”.
Evidence showed that the investigating officer had opposed bail and failed to provide testimony that could justify the minister’s position.
“The onus to prove that the detention was lawful rests firmly on the police, particularly if the preceding arrest was unlawful,” Van der Schyff said.
She concluded that the minster failed to provide a “full and satisfactory explanation” for the delays.
With the condonation application dismissed, the court confirmed that the appeal had lapsed and struck it from the roll.
NOW READ: Saps paid R2.8bn in civil claims since 2022, faces R56.7bn in potential liability
