Study the attached judgment of Ramdin v Minister of Police (07223/14) [2018] ZAGPJHC 661 (13 December 2018).
Write a case note on the pertinent issues of this judgment with specific focus on the aspect of constitutional damages. Critically reflect on the interplay between constitutional and common law remedies
In the case of Ramdin v Minister of Police [2018], the High Court of South Africa was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff was entitled to constitutional damages for the violation of his rights under the South African Constitution. The plaintiff, Mr. Ramdin, had been wrongfully arrested and detained by the police without a warrant. He argued that his constitutional rights to freedom and security of the person had been violated, and he sought damages for the infringement of these rights.
The court considered the provisions of the South African Constitution, specifically Section 11 which guarantees the right to freedom and security of the person. The court recognized that a violation of this right can give rise to a claim for constitutional damages, which are distinct from common law remedies such as damages for delict or breach of contract.
In this case, the court found that Mr. Ramdin had indeed been unlawfully arrested and detained without a warrant, in violation of his constitutional rights. The court awarded him constitutional damages as a remedy for the infringement of his rights. This decision was significant as it recognized the importance of constitutional damages in providing redress for violations of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
The interplay between constitutional and common law remedies is an important aspect of this judgment. While common law remedies such as damages for delict or breach of contract are well-established in South African law, constitutional damages serve a different purpose. Constitutional damages are intended to vindicate and compensate for the violation of fundamental rights, and they reflect the unique status of constitutional rights in the legal system.
By awarding constitutional damages in this case, the court affirmed the importance of protecting and enforcing constitutional rights in South Africa. The judgment serves as a reminder that individuals can seek redress through the courts not only for common law wrongs, but also for violations of their constitutional rights. This decision reinforces the idea that constitutional rights are not merely aspirational principles, but tangible rights that can be enforced through legal action and lead to meaningful remedies such as constitutional damages.