In November 2023 the Constitutional Court declined to use the typical law “at last” guideline to matters in which there are 2 or more reasons for action occurring out of the exact same truths. The “at last” guideline supplies that where a celebration declares for damages occurring from a single reason for action, that celebration should declare damages just as soon as for all damage currently sustained or anticipated in future. The objective of the guideline is to prevent a multiplicity of actions based upon the exact same topic.
The complainant (now deceased) was apprehended in 2008 by a law enforcement officer without a warrant and was apprehended for 10 days on charges of theft and corruption. He was then launched on bail and charges were officially dropped 3 years later on in Might 2011.
The departed set up high court procedures versus the Minister of Cops for damages for wrongful arrest and detention. One year later on, and while the very first action for wrongful arrest and detention was still pending, the departed set up a 2nd action in which he declared damages for harmful prosecution based upon significantly the exact same set of truths. The deceased was ultimately granted damages in the very first action for his illegal detention (although the court discovered that his claim for wrongful arrest had actually recommended, having actually occurred more than 3 years before summons was released).
In reaction to the deceased’s 2nd action (for harmful prosecution), the Minister of Cops argued that this totaled up to a duplication of the very first action and contravened the “at last” guideline. The departed should have actually brought one action covering both claims for wrongful arrest and detention and for harmful prosecution.
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that harmful prosecution and false arrest and detention are 2 various and unique reasons for action. Nevertheless, it held that on the truths of this case, occurring as they did from the exact same set of truths, those distinctions were unimportant to permit 2 various actions. The SCA validated that the deceased might not pursue the 2nd action as doing so contravened the “at last” guideline and dismissed the appeal.
The matter was then interested the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court held that the lower courts had actually improperly concentrated on how likewise the 2 claims were pleaded which they developed out of the exact same truths. As a matter of law, the deceased had 2 unique reasons for action. The deceased’s very first action was based upon wrongful arrest and detention and the 2nd action, harmful prosecution. Although wrongful arrest and harmful prosecution both result in the deprivation of individual liberty rights, they need various aspects to be shown. Wrongful arrest does not need a celebration to show that prosecution was initiated by the accused and, likewise, harmful prosecution does not need a celebration to show detention.
Once both lower courts accepted that there were 2 reasons for action, that must have been completion of the query. What the Courts did was to use the “at last” guideline to the truths to which the guideline did not use. This totaled up to an advancement of the typical law in a way which infringed on litigants’ rights, consisting of the right of access to court. The Court appropriately approved the appeal and enabled the 2nd action to continue.