Addis and Another v Minister van Polisie and Another (19096/2012 , 19099/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 618 (7 August 2014)

Addis and Another v Minister van Polisie and Another (19096/2012 , 19099/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 618 (7 August 2014)

The court found that the second defendant acted in private defence when he was attacked by the plaintiffs and another person, sustaining serious injuries. The force used, including firing shots at the attackers, was reasonable and proportionate given the circumstances, his injuries, and the imminent threat. The plaintiffs failed to prove that their arrest occurred on 15 May 2010, as alleged, and the evidence supported the defendants' version that the arrests were effected later, on reasonable grounds and in accordance with statutory requirements. The plaintiffs did not discharge the burden of proof regarding unlawful arrest or detention. Consequently, both claims for damages arising from...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 618
Parties
Plaintiff: Mickey Addis; Plaintiff: Tadros Adonia; Defendant: Minister van Polisie; Defendant: Sersant A B Thavhakhili
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 August 2014
Case Number
19096/2012 , 19099/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Consolidated Trial
Outcome
Both claims by the first and second plaintiffs are dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Potterill
Legal Topics
Private Defence, Putative Self Defence, Unlawful Arrest, Unlawful Detention, Quantum of Damages, Burden of Proof
Delict Criminal Law Private Defence Putative Self Defence Unlawful Arrest Unlawful Detention Quantum of Damages Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mickey Addis

Plaintiff

Tadros Adonia

Plaintiff

Minister van Polisie

Defendant

Sersant A B Thavhakhili

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Consolidated Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant acted lawfully in shooting the plaintiffs during the incident at Musina on 15 May 2010.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs were unlawfully arrested and detained by the police after the incident.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for private defence and putative private defence were met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second defendant acted in private defence when he was attacked by the plaintiffs and another person, sustaining serious injuries. The force used, including firing shots at the attackers, was reasonable and proportionate given the circumstances, his injuries, and the imminent threat. The plaintiffs failed to prove that their arrest occurred on 15 May 2010, as alleged, and the evidence supported the defendants' version that the arrests were effected later, on reasonable grounds and in accordance with statutory requirements. The plaintiffs did not discharge the burden of proof regarding unlawful arrest or detention. Consequently, both claims for damages arising from...

Court Disposition

Both claims by the first and second plaintiffs are dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The claims of the first and second plaintiffs are dismissed with costs.
  • Costs include the costs of two advocates.