Bantsheng v Minister of Police (1179/2019) [2023] ZANWHC 118 (20 July 2023)

Bantsheng v Minister of Police (1179/2019) [2023] ZANWHC 118 (20 July 2023)

The court found that the plaintiff was assaulted by members of the South African Police Service, resulting in physical and psychological injuries. The defendant's bare denial was untenable and did not constitute a valid defence or justification. The evidence, including the testimony of the plaintiff and supporting witnesses, was consistent and credible, and the defendant failed to identify or justify the conduct of its members. The court held that the defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of its members and is accordingly liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff, including those related to the application for absolution from the...

Citation
[2023] ZANWHC 118
Parties
Plaintiff: Tumelo Ernest Bantsheng; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 July 2023
Case Number
1179/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim on the merits succeeds; defendant held liable for assault and costs.
Judges
Petersen
Legal Topics
Assault by Police, Vicarious Liability, Bodily Integrity, Bare Denial, Onus of Proof
Delict Assault by Police Vicarious Liability Bodily Integrity Bare Denial Onus 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

Tumelo Ernest Bantsheng

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was unlawfully assaulted by members of the South African Police Service.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of its members who perpetrated the assault.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant raised any valid ground of justification for the alleged assault.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was assaulted by members of the South African Police Service, resulting in physical and psychological injuries. The defendant's bare denial was untenable and did not constitute a valid defence or justification. The evidence, including the testimony of the plaintiff and supporting witnesses, was consistent and credible, and the defendant failed to identify or justify the conduct of its members. The court held that the defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of its members and is accordingly liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff, including those related to the application for absolution from the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim on the merits succeeds; defendant held liable for assault and costs.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable for the assault of the plaintiff for such damages as may be agreed upon or determined by the Court.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s costs in respect of the merits of the action, including the costs occasioned by the application for absolution from the instance at the close of the case for the plaintiff.