Latest news with #Yacoob
The Citizen
19-07-2025
- The Citizen
Dead man's estate wins R800k from police minister
Six months imprisonment on false charges ends in big payout after his death and 'intolerable' conditions The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg recently awarded R800 000 in damages to the family of Thomas Mashudu Mulaudzi, who died in 2021 before seeing justice for his unlawful arrest and detention that lasted nearly six months in 2015-2016. Judge Seena Yacoob delivered the judgment on 16 July 2025, ordering the minister of police to pay damages with interest dating back to 2016, plus legal costs. The case was brought by Mulaudzi's sister, Patience Lutendo Mulaudzi, who serves as executrix of his deceased estate. Mulaudzi, 44, 'died in 2021, apparently from complications arising from the Covid-19 virus', according to the judgment. He passed away five years after being found not guilty and discharged from charges related to a truck hijacking he had no involvement in. Background of the case The ordeal began on 21 December 2015 when Mulaudzi was working as a dispatch clerk at Diplomat Warehouse. He was called to his superior's office and arrested without being told what charges he faced. Police handcuffed him and took him to where his employer's hijacked truck was parked. Despite having no connection to the hijacking, Mulaudzi was denied bail because police provided the magistrate with incorrect address information. The judgment said that 'bail was denied because the police told the magistrate that Mr Mulaudzi had provided an incorrect address. However, he had not. The police had mixed up his address with that of the driver of the hijacked truck.' This error resulted in his detention at Modderbee Prison for nearly six months. Yacoob noted that 'the conditions in the prison were deplorable' and this was 'common cause' between both parties, supported by reports from the judicial inspectorate on correctional services. ALSO READ: Germiston woman granted bail after teen's death in hit-and-run Impact on family and life The unlawful detention had devastating consequences on Mulaudzi's family life. As a widower, he was solely responsible for three minor children. The court found that the children 'were left home alone when he was arrested' and 'he was only able to arrange for their care the following day'. The psychological impact was severe. Yacoob recorded that Mulaudzi 'testified that he would have liked to have died in prison because he was being accused of something he did not do'. The judge described how 'the effects of the arrest and detention on Mr Mulaudzi were clearly extremely traumatic and catastrophic'. The arrest damaged Mulaudzi's reputation and dignity, particularly as it occurred at his workplace. When he was eventually released, the judgment noted that 'he did not get his job back because it had already been filled'. At a subsequent CCMA hearing, his employer claimed he was involved in a hijacking. However, there was no evidence of his involvement. ALSO READ: NPA secures preservation order in unlawful blue lights case Previous legal findings In 2018, Judge J Twala determined that Mulaudzi's arrest and detention were unlawful. Yacoob said that 'my brother Twala J determined in 2018 that the arrest and detention of Mr Mulaudzi was unlawful and that the first defendant, the Minister of Police, is 100% liable for Mr Mulaudzi's damages arising therefrom'. Twala dismissed claims of malicious prosecution and assault but upheld the unlawfulness of the detention. The recent judgment focused solely on determining the quantum of damages, as liability had already been established. Yacoob noted that 'the matter is now before me to determine the quantum of damages for which the minister is liable' and that ultimately 'Mulaudzi was discharged because there was no evidence against him'. Expert medical evidence Mental health experts retained by both parties agreed that Mulaudzi suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder as a direct result of his arrest and detention. Yacoob described the effects as 'clearly extremely traumatic and catastrophic'. The judge described how Mulaudzi was transformed from being 'a gainfully employed, respectable member of his community and a caring father' into someone denied basic respect and proper legal procedures. The court emphasised the broader trauma of incarceration, noting 'the 'ordinary' consequences of being incarcerated in one of South Africa's overcrowded and under-resourced prisons, with all autonomy removed'. ALSO READ: 'David vs Goliath': Meta agrees to hand over child porn channel creator information Criticism of state conduct The judge strongly criticised the manner in which state officials handled the case, both during the original proceedings and the damages assessment. 'They were unprepared, produced evidence erratically and called irrelevant witnesses,' the judge wrote, emphasising that this criticism applied more to the minister's officials than to legal counsel. The judge noted that 'unfortunately, the same is still applicable nearly seven years later'. Despite common cause evidence and similar submissions from both sides regarding appropriate damages, settlement proved impossible. The court found that 'the matter could not be settled simply because the minister (or the minister's authorised representative) declined to give the appropriate instruction'. This resulted in unnecessary legal costs and the consumption of scarce judicial resources. Yacoob observed that 'court resources, which are notoriously insufficient', were applied to 'determine a matter that could easily have been settled'. ALSO READ: Gauteng High Court rules National Dialogue can continue Damages assessment Legal representatives for Mulaudzi's family argued for damages between R700 000 and R1 million, while the state submitted that R500 000 to R700 000 would be appropriate. The judge emphasised that quantum determination 'is not a mathematical exercise and that it is not a simple calculation of a daily, weekly or monthly rate'. She said the assessment must consider the arrest circumstances, detention conditions, duration and the violation of basic human rights, while balancing this against the fact that damages come from public funds. After considering all factors, Yacoob determined that 'the appropriate amount to be R800 000.' 'I am satisfied that a slightly higher award is justified,' Yacoob said. Punitive costs order Beyond the damages award, Yacoob imposed a punitive costs order against the state, requiring payment of the plaintiff's legal costs on an attorney and client scale. The judge acknowledged that he 'would ordinarily be wary of granting a punitive costs order against the state, as it is public funds at issue and the state has many responsibilities'. However, he justified the order by finding that the way the minister's officials behaved was deserving of a punitive costs order. The court ordered the minister of police to pay R800 000 plus interest of 10.5% from 30 August 2016, to be paid within 20 days of serving. Additionally, the judge ruled that the state cover all plaintiff's legal costs, including expert witness fees and interpreter fees, with interest from the tax date to the payment date. READ NEXT: George building collapse 'was entirely preventable' – report
The Citizen
19-07-2025
- The Citizen
Man's sister laughs to the bank after suing police minister
The Minister of police sued after a man died before seeing Justice for nearly six months imprisonment on false charges. The Gauteng High Court recently awarded R800,000 in damages to the family of Thomas Mashudu Mulaudzi, who died in 2021 before seeing justice for his unlawful arrest and detention that lasted nearly six months in 2015-2016. Judge Seena Yacoob delivered the judgment on 16 July 2025, ordering the Minister of Police to pay damages with interest dating back to 2016, plus legal costs. The case was brought by Mulaudzi's sister, Patience Lutendo Mulaudzi, who serves as executrix of his deceased estate. Mulaudzi, 44, 'died in 2021, apparently from complications arising from the Covid-19 virus,' according to the judgment. He passed away five years after being found not guilty and discharged from charges related to a truck hijacking he had no involvement in. Background of the case The ordeal began on 21 December 2015 when Mulaudzi was working as a dispatch clerk at Diplomat Warehouse. He was called to his superior's office and arrested without being told what charges he faced. Police handcuffed him and took him to where his employer's hijacked truck was parked. Despite having no connection to the hijacking, Mulaudzi was denied bail because police provided the magistrate with incorrect address information. The judgment revealed that 'bail was denied because the police told the magistrate that Mr Mulaudzi had provided an incorrect address. However, he had not; the police had mixed up his address with that of the driver of the hijacked truck.' This error resulted in his detention at Modderbee Prison for nearly six months. Yacoob noted that 'the conditions in the prison were deplorable' and this was 'common cause' between both parties, supported by reports from the Judicial Inspectorate on Correctional Services. ALSO READ: Germiston woman granted bail after teen's death in hit-and-run Impact on family and life The unlawful detention had devastating consequences for Mulaudzi's family life. As a widower, he was solely responsible for three minor children. The court found that the children 'were left home alone when he was arrested' and 'he was only able to arrange for their care the following day.' The psychological impact was severe. Yacoob recorded that Mulaudzi 'testified that he would have liked to have died in prison because he was being accused of something he did not do.' The judge described how 'the effects of the arrest and detention on Mr Mulaudzi were clearly extremely traumatic and catastrophic.' The arrest damaged Mulaudzi's reputation and dignity, particularly as it occurred at his workplace. When he was eventually released, the judgment noted that 'he did not get his job back because it had already been filled.' At a subsequent CCMA hearing, his employer claimed he was involved in a hijacking. However, there was no evidence of his involvement in the hijacking. ALSO READ: NPA secures preservation order in unlawful blue lights case Previous legal findings In 2018, Judge Twala had already determined that Mulaudzi's arrest and detention were unlawful. Yacoob explained that 'my brother Twala J determined in 2018 that the arrest and detention of Mr Mulaudzi was unlawful, and that the first defendant, the Minister of Police, is 100% liable for Mr Mulaudzi's damages arising therefrom.' However, Twala dismissed claims of malicious prosecution and assault but upheld the unlawfulness of the detention. The recent judgment focused solely on determining the quantum of damages, as liability had already been established. Yacoob noted that 'the matter is now before me to determine the quantum of damages for which the minister is liable' and that ultimately 'Mulaudzi was discharged because there was no evidence against him.' Expert medical evidence Mental health experts retained by both parties agreed that Mulaudzi suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) as a direct result of his arrest and detention. Yacoob described the effects as 'clearly extremely traumatic and catastrophic'. The judge described how Mulaudzi was transformed from being 'a gainfully employed, respectable member of his community and a caring father' into someone denied basic respect and proper legal procedures. The court emphasised the broader trauma of incarceration, noting 'the 'ordinary' consequences of being incarcerated in one of South Africa's overcrowded and under-resourced prisons, with all autonomy removed.' ALSO READ: 'David vs Goliath': Meta agrees to hand over child porn channel creator information Criticism of state conduct The judge strongly criticised the manner in which state officials handled the case, both during the original proceedings and the current damages assessment. 'They were unprepared, produced evidence erratically and called irrelevant witnesses,' the judge wrote, emphasising that this criticism applied more to the minister's officials than to legal counsel. The judge noted that 'unfortunately, the same is still applicable nearly seven years later.' Despite common cause evidence and similar submissions from both sides regarding appropriate damages, settlement proved impossible. The court found that 'the matter could not be settled simply because the Minister (or the Minister's authorised representative) declined to give the appropriate instruction.' This resulted in unnecessary legal costs and the consumption of scarce judicial resources. Yacoob observed that 'court resources, which are notoriously insufficient,' were applied to 'determine a matter that could easily have been settled.' ALSO READ: Gauteng High Court rules National Dialogue should continue Damages assessment Legal representatives for Mulaudzi's family argued for damages between R700,000 and R1 million, while the state submitted that R500,000 to R700,000 would be appropriate. The judge emphasised that quantum determination 'is not a mathematical exercise, and that it is not a simple calculation of a daily, weekly or monthly rate.' She said the assessment must consider the arrest circumstances, detention conditions, duration, and the violation of basic human rights, while balancing this against the fact that damages come from public funds. After considering all factors, Yacoob determined that 'the appropriate amount to be R800 000.' I am satisfied that a slightly higher award is justified,' Yacoob stated. Punitive costs order Beyond the damages award, Judge Yacoob imposed a punitive costs order against the state, requiring payment of the plaintiff's legal costs on an attorney and client scale. The judge acknowledged that he 'would ordinarily be wary of granting a punitive costs order against the State, as it is public funds at issue and the state has many responsibilities.' However, he justified the order by finding that the way the minister's officials behaved was deserving of a punitive costs order. The court ordered the minister of police to pay R800,000 plus interest of 10.5% from 30 August 2016, to be paid within 20 days of service. Additionally, the judge ruled that the state cover all plaintiff's legal costs, including expert witness fees and interpreter fees, with interest from the tax date to the payment date. READ NEXT: George building collapse 'was entirely preventable' – report
Daily Maverick
12-06-2025
- Daily Maverick
Judge slams Two Oceans Marathon leadership in defamation ruling — A costly legal misstep
The Two Oceans hierarchy is still licking its wounds and assessing its options after failing to gag blogger Stuart Mann via the courts. The Two Oceans Marathon hierarchy — led by its chairperson Toni Cavanagh — is keeping its cards firmly against its chest after a failed attempt to silence runner and blogger Stuart Mann for his articles in his Running Mann blog, which they deem to be defamatory and devoid of truth. Gauteng Division of the High Court in Johannesburg Judge Seena Yacoob threw out the matter on 5 June 2025, after a few weeks of mulling over its merits. In her judgment, Yacoob was scathing of the Two Oceans leaders, stopping short of saying they had wasted her precious time. She dismissed the matter with grade C costs against the Two Oceans and Cavanagh. The costs are expected to be about R400,000. In his articles Mann reported on alleged discrepancies in Cavanagh's professional CV, as well as questioning the chairperson's achievements as a runner. The runner/blogger also criticised the Two Oceans board following a permit breach that allowed more runners to start the 2024 edition of the race than had been stipulated. As a result of this permit breach, the City of Cape Town confirmed to Daily Maverick that it had indeed pulled its sponsorship of the annual event. However, Cavanagh denied this when she spoke with this publication in the aftermath of the race. Scathing judgment 'In this case neither of the applicants have made out a case that the esteem in which they are held is of a particular type. Cavanagh does not favour the court with her own full history nor does she demonstrate that she is viewed with any particular esteem or that she has a reputation for integrity and good leadership,' Yacoob wrote. 'Two Oceans does not contend that it has run its events in a manner reasonably beyond criticism and above board,' Yacoob continued. 'It does not even contend, let alone attempt to demonstrate that it has conducted its events in a manner compliant with its permits from the City of Cape Town. There is no attempt to demonstrate that any of the factual claims made in the publications are untrue, although there is a bald allegation that they are all false,' the judge stated. 'The applicants do not set out any factual background in the context of which I can conclude that the publications are defamatory. The applicants also do not plead facts from which the alternative questions of violations of the rights to dignity and privacy can be properly determined,' said Judge Yacoob. Despite this harsh criticism, the Two Oceans says it is still considering its options, hinting at a potential appeal despite this costly defeat. Ducking and diving When Daily Maverick reached out to Cavanagh after the judgment was passed, she said she was a bit busy with meetings and would avail herself when things had settled down. 'I need to pop into a meeting right now and I will be able to talk to you either later today (5 June) or tomorrow. Preferably tomorrow,' Cavanagh said. After confirming via WhatsApp that the following day (6 June) would still be fine to talk to her, Daily Maverick instead received communication from Two Oceans spokesperson Lindy-Joy Dennis — directing this publication to Rupert Candy (the Two Oceans' legal representative) for comment. Candy told Daily Maverick on Friday, 6 June, that his clients had 'released a public statement which speaks for itself'. Candy said his clients would 'not be making any further statement at this stage, but reserve their right to do so in the next two weeks'. Official Two Oceans response 'While the court accepted the urgency of the matter, the application was ultimately dismissed. We respect the Court's ruling, but are disappointed that the judgment did not substantively engage with the nature, tone, or personal impact of the specific language used — including statements which, in our view, extended beyond fair criticism into reputational harm and personal attack,' the Two Oceans said in the statement. 'We wish to clarify that the Court did not find Mann's statements to be truthful, justified, or ethically appropriate. The matter was dismissed on procedural grounds — not on the factual accuracy or moral acceptability of the comments made,' stated the Two Oceans. 'As an organisation, the Two Oceans Marathon has always welcomed scrutiny, transparency, and robust engagement — especially from the passionate running community we serve. However, it is essential that such engagement is carried out responsibly, respectfully, and with due regard for the rights and dignity of individuals,' it added. 'As custodians of the 'world's most beautiful marathon', we believe it is our duty to uphold the ethics of responsible engagement within the running community — not only on behalf of the organisation, but in the interest of all athletes, partners, sponsors, volunteers and stakeholders who are part of the Two Oceans Marathon legacy,' the organisation said. 'Our decision to pursue legal relief was not taken lightly, nor was it a frivolous attempt to silence criticism. It was a step taken to bring an end to ongoing public attacks that, in our view, undermined the integrity of the organisation and unfairly targeted individuals serving it in good faith,' the Two Oceans said. Vindicated Mann, however, believes the Two Oceans targeted him purely because of his reputation as a voice for the tight-knit running community. He said he was pleased to be vindicated by the courts. 'It was great to be 100% vindicated by a high court judge. She obviously considered it for a long time, about three weeks,' Mann told Daily Maverick. 'One of the things I've been exposing at Two Oceans with the current board has been the lies and the negligence. Ironically, that's what the judge ruled as well. I'm very happy with the result, because it was a bullying tactic on their side, to try to silence valid criticism of their ineptitude and negligence,' he said. 'In their statement they don't mention that they've received a cost order on grade C, which is the highest level. As well as the fact that the judge was completely scathing of them. But it's not surprising because it's what they've done, they've put their heads in the sand,' Mann stated. DM
TimesLIVE
05-06-2025
- Politics
- TimesLIVE
Blogger Mann will not be silenced on Two Oceans Marathon matter, court rules
Freedom of speech has won the day in a matter in which Two Oceans Marathon chair Antoinette Cavanagh and her board tried to silence marathon runner and blogger Stuart Mann. Cavanagh wanted the court to rule certain of his articles on his blog The Running Mann are defamatory, to order they be removed and that he apologise publicly for them. But Mann, in opposing the application, said his allegations — that she had embellished her CV, lied about her running credentials and was responsible for 'the worst organised marathon' in the event's 54-year history — were true and in the public interest. In a ruling handed down on Thursday, Johannesburg high court judge Seena Yacoob said Cavanagh's case was lacking in many respects and she had not established Mann's publications were defamatory. 'In this case neither of the applicants (Cavanagh and the board) have made out a case that the esteem in which they are held is of a particular type. 'Cavanagh does not favour the court with her own full history nor does she demonstrate she is viewed with any particular esteem or she has a reputation for integrity and good leadership. 'Two Oceans does not contend it has run its events in a manner reasonably beyond criticism and above board. It does not even contend, let alone attempt to demonstrate, it has conducted its events lawfully and in a manner compliant with its permits from the City of Cape Town. There is no attempt to demonstrate any of the factual claims made in the publications is untrue, though there are bald allegations that they are all false,' Judge Yacoob said. The judge criticised the 'chaotic and vague manner' in which the urgent application was pleaded. 'The founding papers are vague, voluminous and lacking particularity. They contain more argument than fact. To require a judge to trawl through papers to try to make sense of them is unacceptable in an urgent court.' She said Cavanagh and the board had failed to set out a 'clear factual background' and the founding affidavit consisted almost entirely of argumentative matter. It did not contain dates of the publications, nor the specific problematic statements or utterances. They had also not dealt with why they alleged each publication, in its entirety, was defamatory, instead pleading defamation in a 'broad and sweeping manner'. Yacoob said while it was possible an entire publication may, on the face of it, be defamatory, in this case the publications complained of were not. For example, it was not clear how a photograph of Cavanagh, with a caption she had recently completed a running event, could be defamatory. 'There are reams of examples of patently non-defamatory and even complimentary statements in the publications. A cursory glance demonstrates that the publications consist as much of opinion as fact, and that at least some of the factual matter has a proper basis,' the judge said. 'It is not the function of the court to attempt to sift out what may be defamatory and how.' Yacoob said the applicants had wrongly approached the matter on the understanding that all they had to do was show publication of uncomplimentary statements about themselves. However, in discharging their onus to establish that the publications were defamatory, they were required to establish both what their status or esteem was and that the publications tended to lower these in the eyes of the community. This had not been established, she said. Yacoob dismissed the application, and ordered the applicants to pay the costs. She said she had considered 'showing her displeasure in which the application had been run with a punitive costs order but on reflection, I consider the failure of the application is sufficient indication of the court's displeasure'.
