COmpare and Contrast Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

COmpare and Contrast - Essay Example ast four cases that include Lindile Mbotya v Minister of Police, Lamula et al v Minister of Police, Mhando v Attorney General and Another, and Gervas v Said Mohamed Ndeteleni. Lindile Mbotya v Minister of Police is a South African case that was decided in the High Court of South Africa, Eastern Cape Division of Port Elizabeth. Lindile Mbotya (Plaintiff) sued the Minister of Police (Defendant) for an alleged unlawful arrest and detention seeking damages in the region of 250,000 South African Rand. The plaintiff sued based on the fact that the arrest and detention was done without probable cause and that it was malicious. A member of the South African Police Services did the arrest in the employ of the defendant. The defendant refuted the allegations stating that the plaintiff was arrested and detained lawfully in accordance with the provisions of Section 40(1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 based on the arresting officer’s suspicion that the plaintiff had committed an offence. was within the confines of the law in exercising his discretion to arrest the plaintiff. The high court ruled in favor of the plaintiff based on aspects such as unlawful arrest and the circumstances that led to the deprivation of liberty, for instance improper motive, and harsh conduct of the arresting officers. The damages were awarded not to enrich the plaintiff but to offer solatium for the injury caused and also based on the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Mhando v Attorney General and Another is a similar case to the above case in the sense that Mhando (Plaintiff) sued the Attorney General and Another (Defendant) for wrongful arrest, detention and prosecution by the police and sought damages for that. The case was also held in a High Court, but at Dare salaam in Tanzania. Unlike in the above case, the defendant here filed a written statement of defense and also followed it by a notice of preliminary objection that the suit was time barred. Unlike the first case,