Blos v Minister of Police (114/2019) [2023] ZANWHC 126 (20 July 2023)

Blos v Minister of Police (114/2019) [2023] ZANWHC 126 (20 July 2023)

The court found that the defendant failed to plead and prove any lawful justification for the shooting of the plaintiff. The evidence established that the plaintiff was shot by Colonel Selogilwe, a SAPS member, during a protest, but the defendant's plea did not allege any wrongful conduct by the plaintiff or circumstances justifying the shooting. The defendant's reliance on self-defence and necessity was unsupported by the evidence and contradicted by the plea. The court held that Selogilwe's conduct was not objectively reasonable, as he created the emergency by confronting the protestors alone, failed to use available alternatives, and resorted to excessive force by firing live...

Citation
[2023] ZANWHC 126
Parties
Plaintiff: Kabelo Victor Blos; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 July 2023
Case Number
114/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Defendant found liable for the assault and injury sustained by the plaintiff; costs awarded to the plaintiff.
Judges
A H Petersen
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Assault by Police, Self Defence, Necessity, Pleadings and Amendment
Delict Civil Procedure Vicarious Liability Assault by Police Self Defence Necessity Pleadings and Amendment

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kabelo Victor Blos

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable for the assault and shooting of the plaintiff by a SAPS member.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant established grounds of justification, specifically self-defence or necessity, for the shooting.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's plea and evidence were consistent and sufficient to avoid liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant failed to plead and prove any lawful justification for the shooting of the plaintiff. The evidence established that the plaintiff was shot by Colonel Selogilwe, a SAPS member, during a protest, but the defendant's plea did not allege any wrongful conduct by the plaintiff or circumstances justifying the shooting. The defendant's reliance on self-defence and necessity was unsupported by the evidence and contradicted by the plea. The court held that Selogilwe's conduct was not objectively reasonable, as he created the emergency by confronting the protestors alone, failed to use available alternatives, and resorted to excessive force by firing live...

Court Disposition

Defendant found liable for the assault and injury sustained by the plaintiff; costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable for the assault on the plaintiff perpetrated by Colonel Selogilwe, a member of SAPS, when he shot and injured the plaintiff on 27 April 2018.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff's costs in respect of the merits of the action.