Baloyi v Minister of Police (20987/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 579 (30 March 2022)

Baloyi v Minister of Police (20987/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 579 (30 March 2022)

The court found that the police were not adequately prepared for the event and failed to act when there was actual danger. The order to shoot rubber bullets was given when students were running away, at which point there was no imminent threat to persons or property. The police's conduct was not justified by necessity, and their actions were negligent and unlawful. The plaintiff's version was accepted as more probable, and the defendant failed to provide a credible alternative account. The police had no justification to shoot at students who were fleeing, and liability was established for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 579
Parties
Plaintiff: Baloyi Wisani Johannes; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2022
Case Number
20987/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Trial on Merits Only
Outcome
Plaintiff successful on liability; defendant found liable for damages arising from unlawful police action.
Judges
Phahlamohlaka
Legal Topics
Unlawful Police Action, Negligence, Defence of Necessity, Personal Injury, Liability for State Action
Delict Civil Procedure Unlawful Police Action Negligence Defence of Necessity Personal Injury Liability for State Action

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baloyi Wisani Johannes

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Trial on Merits Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the actions of the South African Police Services in shooting the plaintiff with a rubber bullet were lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the defence of necessity applies to justify the police's conduct.
  3. 3 Whether the police acted negligently in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the police were not adequately prepared for the event and failed to act when there was actual danger. The order to shoot rubber bullets was given when students were running away, at which point there was no imminent threat to persons or property. The police's conduct was not justified by necessity, and their actions were negligent and unlawful. The plaintiff's version was accepted as more probable, and the defendant failed to provide a credible alternative account. The police had no justification to shoot at students who were fleeing, and liability was established for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff successful on liability; defendant found liable for damages arising from unlawful police action.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay costs, including costs of two counsel.