The court took an indifferent stance on the way the case was handled.
The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has dealt a blow to the police minister by striking an appeal from its rolls, clearing the way for a wrongfully imprisoned man to receive R2 million in compensation.
The case concerns the arrest and detention of Mzondile Andries Theor, who spent two years and one month behind bars before the charges against him were withdrawn due to lack of evidence.
In October 2022, the High Court found Thure's arrest and continued imprisonment unlawful and awarded him R2 million in general damages.
He was initially refused bail after his first court appearance.
Police minister misses appeal deadline
After an initial unsuccessful attempt to obtain 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 deadline – meaning the appeal had already expired as per the law.
In response, the minister apologized to the High Court for extending 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 blamed administrative oversight for the delay, stating that the SCA order was sent in October 2023 but came to the lawyer's attention only three months later.
According to the lawyer, the email sent by the State Attorney's Office in Bloemfontein was lost in “a trail of spam emails”.
Despite the minister's argument that the appeal had reasonable prospects of success, Thurer's legal representatives rejected the claim, arguing that no sufficient reason had been shown for the delay.
He further questioned the credibility of the explanation, highlighting the absence of technical evidence.
Thure's attorney also highlighted that both the sender and recipient work within the same Justice Department system.
Gauteng High Court decision
Judge Elmarie van der Schiff, supported by the two concurring judges, stressed that reinstatement of an appeal requires justification “if good reasons are shown”.
He said the court was “flabbergasted” when the minister's legal representative requested an adjournment from the Bar to the hearing day on March 18, 2026 – a request which was denied.
The court also highlighted procedural shortcomings, including the failure to file heads of argument in the pardon application.
While Van der Schiff acknowledged that the email may have ended up in a spam folder, he noted that key questions remained unanswered.
Read more: SAPS 'drowned in litigation' as unlawful arrests and strikes cost billions in losses
“Who was the primary recipient of the email addressed to the Bloemfontein office, as the respondent to the amnesty application was only CC-ed on the email, and what was his or her role in the case and the prosecution of the appeal?
“If there was indication of unread mail in the folder, why did the lawyer not check the spam folder repeatedly, as it essentially should have been there?” 23 March cataclysm Reads.
“What steps were taken between February 6, 2024 and February 21, 2024 when the existence of the SCA-order was mentioned, and the notice of appeal and waiver application was filed?
Van der Schiff further stated, “The unanswered questions make the State Attorney's explanation for the delay inadequate. It renders the explanation sparse and lacking in specificity.”
Court criticizes 'disorderly' conduct
The court took a lukewarm stance on how the case was handled and pointed to missed deadlines and poor preparation.
Van der Schiff commented that there appeared to be a “lack of commitment” on the part of the minister and his legal team.
“The applicant views this litigation in a very dispassionate manner,” Van der Schiff said.
He further said, “The applicant did not find the matters in order and sought adjournment of the hearing to the day on which the matter was to be heard.”
Furthermore, the court highlighted that Thurer has been waiting to receive compensation since 2022, and that the continued delays have unfairly prejudiced him.
Appeal removed from roll
The judgment also said that the minister's chances of succeeding on his appeal were “low” and “at best, weak”.
Evidence revealed that the investigating officer had opposed bail and failed to provide testimony that could justify the minister's position.
“The onus is on the police to prove that the detention was lawful, especially if the previous arrest was unlawful,” Van der Schiff said.
He concluded that the minister failed to provide a “full and satisfactory explanation” for the delay.
With the amnesty application rejected, the court confirmed that the appeal had expired and it was struck off the roll.
Read now: SAPS to pay R2.8bn in civil claims by 2022, faces R56.7bn in potential liability