Kanyengambeta v AG (Civil Cause 474 of 1994) [1995] MWHCCiv 23 (28 July 1995)

........ - :rN rIBI~ lJJGH COUIIT OF' l1ALAWI J?l-)Tl.v·•·11T,.1· T)T;y-•1-snlV CIVIL CAUSf': NUt1B[•~R 174 or 1-994 _ ~ -. L~--' - _ : fl. _1 .nJ~_kL J . LI. PRJrAZIO D. D J\ffENGAHBE .. "'TA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLAill'l'IF'F' and THE ATIORNEY GENERAL DEFENDANT This is a summon for s:mrnn:1ry j u:Jc3rr1r=i1t brutrJht un::le1:- Orde r 14 of t he Rules o f the Supreme CcnJr t. It i s duly support. BJ. by an rihe b3-sis of tbe appli cation is U:st the def entla11t a f fidavit . bas n o defence to the action of f a lsE?. imprisornnent . T.be summon is s trongl y objecterl to _, a11d there J.s an affidavit in opposition. I t i s common cas e that the plaintiff_. J-lr. Kanyengarnbeta vras im.priscms::l a.t C:bict.ori and Zcm:tb:l Prisons from 25th tray 1992 to 31s t J u ly 1992 'Wl:-1en he 11:r.:1s rE:;llf1'.:3Erl. ·without beirB cba.rge::l hr. Iisisba for t he plaintj_ff contends that the plaintif f '"1ras a rreste:1 wi.t hciut a Warrant of Atrest a.rrj or no rffison for his a rrest vras gi ,,len ; neither -r.·Bs t herefore, s ubmi t t tX:l. tlBt a.lthouJh the Plai11tiff was a.rres tB::l un::ler the Act, t hose effectj_r:g the arrest ha'.::; no authority to do so. Therefore, t he a. r re~3t w·c➔ s unla.wf1-1l. Fal:::,E' imprisonment "'i~Bs defined in the case of O. lt :t1. Sj_n]j_ ·vs. D. Reis•-; ard Conrp3ny an :l Others Cj_vil Cause number 128 of 19132 (rmreports.3), FB.ge 3. TI1e lrarn B::l Jurlge quot ing rre:nnes c1e la lev sa.1.d: therP an)r i:r1\restigation. He, "i1npris onment is no other th .. i. J1g but the restrai_nt of a ID::-""ln' s li_be rty 'Whether it be j_n th.e (JF•f?.11 f :i.elcl or j_n t.}1E~ stocks or in the cage in the streets (JI u1 a TIBn' s own ho1-1se as well as j_n the comr.non qaol an] in all the 2/. ' . . . - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- --------- ,-, - - places the }. Brty so restrairn=.r:l 1s said to be a prisoner so lor!:J as he have not his lit,erty freely to go at all times to all places -whether he will without b:=iil or main prtze or othenvise . 11 Ur. Chimasula for the def en:::la.nt contenda::l that the Plaintiff was a rresta::l under REguJ.aU_on J C7) of the Preservation of Pllblic Security Act; whi.ch dDes not r1E.:ke j_ t a prerequisite that someone must be chargr.::rl j_n order to J1Jstif':;l cm. arrest or that there must be a vB.rrant of arrest. For m.13 to ccmside:T whether the PlcuJ1tiff can cbtain the praye--l s 11IT1IIBry juigement or not _. I m1Jst £1.rst look at the provision of Order 1(1/3-4./2 of the lmles of ~--;upreme Court which provj_des as f oll ows: "The purpose of Order 14 is to enalile a Plaj_nt if f to obtain Sl.1. IIlIJBlY judgment. 1,7j_thout tria l, j_f he can prove his claim cla"3.rly, a.nJ 1.f the defen::.lant is unable to set up a bonafide defencr~ _. or rc.1.ise an issue a 1:j-ainst the claj__m whl_ch ouJht to be trial .. ... . . 11 • I now come to the quest1_on; does the Defendant rave a bonafide defence? It i s not deniel by the defendant that the Plaintiff ,vas arresta::l without 11B.rrant., in.1priscma::l for 2 :months and was r elB3. SErl without a clBPJe. HowErver, tb_e Defemant contems that justifiable he h3.s a defence and that the j_mprisonm.ent was the because presenlc=.1.ticin of Publj_c ~:;ecuri.ty Act . Cb_tef Justice Skinner dealing wi tb_ Re:Ju~lation 3(7) of the Pre.serva.tion of Public Security Act, Dl the c::1se of Soloruun Sole '\ls . The Republic llisc. Crj_rrri_nal /\ppliec:Jtinn No. 12 of t98:L __ p3,ge 3, said: JIB.de urrler R.e:gu13.tion 3(7) of t he arrest 11Tc35 It will be seen that the p1n1-)ciSr:? of the arrest and detention 1J1lder the s1Jb--re:ru1a.tion is to hold the person m custo:::iy pr:1rnb. Jl.1:J a decis=ion whether a detention order should be nBd e against him. In my 3/ .... . . ,-=> c; '--'-- t.o 'i7} Pr.hPtr n1· ·-· \ 1___ _ :iu:lgment t .. hc' per]_i:xJ (J1.1r:irq wh:_i_ch a :per:~un 1IB~l be held in custcdy· c21n lx=,i no lml':~Jer trr-:Jn -v.'01. JJJ. J be rea:::.__:;rn1c::l.bly nr~ces-:-ary tu c:i1_:il.aj_n a dr.?C'. 1.s.1cJn frcJn1 the appropr~Lc:ite (::iP LF1nt1- Oll or-· lPJ' a rlt,hr11··L1-_.v ;:-:3 _ C ·- _ .__.. ·- _ _ _ 1 _ ,., -· T1tL-=; of course ., c3CJE5 n ot should be? n1:.-xJe. aqajx1.:_=:it hiJD. mEEUl tlHt. the~ c1d,;_1j_1.:::::r:1 to tl:1J? c=:rr:iproprtate autbnrt t y b.::J.s te.virrJ an tc1 b e put f on(r.:J..rd But oppc::n~tun ity to c::,3rt~l out :::,ome be for aqa111 rE:asonal)le an·j 5J-:irJ1J1c1 nnt bt=' t=!}:'J:::E!':/::n_•,/P 11 JJIVE1s t:Lgation j _:nve5ti_c_:ration. the PDli_ce i;-,ri thrnJt -1-· 1~1-t-.. _. _ _ .l_ _ ":;uc:h time rrms t the . J ·-· --·· • ,Juwn i _n thE? CltLE•f ,Ju-=d~.tcP ~~;e t thE1. a_bove case has been What f ol l owB::l 111 SlJl"'ls:E!CIUE~nt c:a.s:e:::;. From thE5f? prec:a1ents, it i s clEBr t hat t he d eci.ctis11::f fa.ct.or as to wl1c:~tber- imprisonment is l awful or not d eperx]'.::3 un tbe per1cd ,. d.nd t .. l1e r:01::?r1cd ,;,ra.r:Les from Q°iSe to c:asE! in a.ccorda.ncr.? w:Lth the c:\_rcums tance~3 crf I,, t heref 1:JrE~, find tlat tl-.iE~1::-c:1 :L ·:.-:; d. trj_/Jl)]J?. the ca.se. :L:3SlH?. Th:? appli_c3. tion J or :31n011n.ry def errlan t s. 0 1r L•-·111rn111c--Fr::i 1-1- cta]-1--~::irc:· -t·l ]- C _, }_ _______ , _ _ i _,, _} .t::. _ ·-· ......... _ . · -- ..l_ .1. J ·-·· __ , ,-:::,c_~tt -1:::i.-T r--1- 111] V (_JL .. , .l L .. 0, ... ) ' - . ) . '- - · .... , - qq5 _,. _. . > judqTJJf?JLt f;::1.1_1"3 w:Lth cos t s to the ,J a_nr?. Ua YE:?mu An.::3:J.h ( Hr::; ) IE1~Jl'Y Rff;JS1RAR Del:L•,.lerE-tl cm her b::iJ:s.1f: on day ut :1996.