Bhembe v Minister of Police (4327/2018) [2020] ZAMPMHC 1 (16 January 2020)

Bhembe v Minister of Police (4327/2018) [2020] ZAMPMHC 1 (16 January 2020)

The court found that the Defendant is vicariously liable for the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff. The evidence established that the police officer was issued a firearm without completing the required training, and that the shooting was not justified by self-defence. The officer's conduct was sufficiently connected to his employment, as he intervened in what he perceived as a crime, and the risk created by arming an untrained officer was reasonably foreseeable. The Defendant's arguments regarding the officer being off duty and acting outside the scope of employment were rejected, as the officer's actions were in line with his mandate to fight crime. The Plaintiff proved liability on a...

Citation
[2020] ZAMPMHC 1
Parties
Plaintiff: Sandile Steve Bhembe; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 January 2020
Case Number
4327/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Trial Limited to Liability
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff on liability; Defendant found vicariously liable for damages resulting from the shooting.
Judges
Ratshibvumo
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Accidental Discharge, Police Misconduct, Firearm Training, Damages for Personal Injury
Delict Civil Procedure Vicarious Liability Accidental Discharge Police Misconduct Firearm Training Damages for Personal Injury

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandile Steve Bhembe

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Trial Limited to Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the Minister of Police vicariously liable for injuries caused to the Plaintiff by an off-duty police officer?
  2. 2 Did the Plaintiff attempt to rob or attack the police officer, justifying self-defence?
  3. 3 Did the police officer complete the required firearm training before being issued a handgun?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendant is vicariously liable for the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff. The evidence established that the police officer was issued a firearm without completing the required training, and that the shooting was not justified by self-defence. The officer's conduct was sufficiently connected to his employment, as he intervened in what he perceived as a crime, and the risk created by arming an untrained officer was reasonably foreseeable. The Defendant's arguments regarding the officer being off duty and acting outside the scope of employment were rejected, as the officer's actions were in line with his mandate to fight crime. The Plaintiff proved liability on a...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff on liability; Defendant found vicariously liable for damages resulting from the shooting.

Orders

  • The Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiff all proven or agreed damages suffered as a result of being shot by Cpt Thubana on 27 January 2017.
  • The Defendant is ordered to pay the costs.