High Court rejects damages bid

The Western Cape High Court has dismissed a R17 million claim brought by Vuyisa Eric Njikelana, a man who spent nearly 19 months in custody before being acquitted of double murder. The court ruled that both the police and the prosecutors acted lawfully and reasonably based on the information they had at the time.

Njikelana had sued the Minister of Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, arguing that his detention was unlawful and that he had been maliciously prosecuted after his 2015 arrest. The case stemmed from the mob killing of two men in Witsand, Atlantis, in June 2015. Njikelana remained behind bars until March 2017, when he was granted bail, and was acquitted in December 2017.

Why the court backed police and prosecutors

Judge Matthew Francis found that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to suspect Njikelana’s involvement in the killings. According to the judgment, investigators at the time had a statement from a co-accused directly implicating him, along with other witness accounts placing him at the scene. The court stressed that the law does not require certainty before an arrest, only reasonable suspicion based on available facts.

That finding was central to the case. Njikelana may have later been cleared, but the court said that did not automatically make the arrest or detention unlawful. In South African law, a failed prosecution is not enough on its own to prove bad faith or state misconduct.

Bail challenge and malicious prosecution claim fail

Njikelana also claimed prosecutors acted improperly by opposing his bail and misleading the court. That argument was rejected. The court heard that prosecutors relied on the seriousness of the charges, witness statements against him and the fact that he was already out on bail in a separate rape case when he was arrested.

The judgment also found that Njikelana did not have a fixed address, despite claiming otherwise, and that the bail court had been given all relevant information, including evidence that did not implicate him. Judge Francis said Njikelana failed to prove that prosecutors acted without reasonable cause or with intent to harm him.

Credibility became a key issue

A major factor in the ruling was the court’s view of Njikelana’s own evidence. Judge Francis described him as an unreliable witness whose testimony contained contradictions and inaccuracies. Under cross-examination, Njikelana admitted that several claims in his lawsuit were false, including allegations that police stormed his home and failed to explain why he was being arrested. He also conceded that he had been at the scene of the killings, contradicting earlier claims.

In the end, the court dismissed all claims and ordered Njikelana to pay the legal costs of both the police and the prosecution. That ruling closes the door, for now, on his bid to hold the state financially liable for the nearly two years he spent fighting a murder charge that did not stick.