FELDMAN v MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS 1992 (2) ZLR 304 (S)

Flynote

Delict — unlawful arrest — appellant arrested with others — no reasonable suspicion that appellant had committed crime

Headnote

Some money was stolen from the cash office at business premises. Five women employed by the business had access to this office. Feldman worked in the accounts office next to the cash office. The cash office could only be entered by passing through the accounts office. There was a partition between the two offices with glass panels and plywood.Anyone in the accounts office could easily see into the inner office. At the time of the theft Feldman was working in the outer office, together with two other women and there was one woman in the inner office.

The police arrested all five women and took them to the police station. They were strip searched. Nothing was found. They were later taken back to the workplace so that their handbags could be searched. These had been left at their place of work when they were arrested. They were held overnight at the police station and released on bail the next day. None of these women was subsequently prosecuted for theft. One of the five women, Feldman, subsequently sued for unlawful arrest.

Held, that the onus of establishing that the arrest of Feldman was in compliance with s 29(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 59] and was therefore lawful rested upon the respondent.

Held, further, that the vital question was whether, prior to the arrest of Feldman, the arresting officer had had reasonable grounds for suspecting that Feldman had committed theft.

Held, further, that the police had reasonable grounds to suspect that one of