Bota v Minister of Police (3910/2015) [2017] ZAECGHC 122 (16 November 2017)

Bota v Minister of Police (3910/2015) [2017] ZAECGHC 122 (16 November 2017)

The court found that the plaintiff and his witness Mandla failed to mention in their contemporaneous statements to the police that the plaintiff was tackled or tripped to the ground, which was later introduced at trial as a key element of the plaintiff’s version. This omission, together with inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s evidence and the corroboration of the defendant’s version by police witnesses and the IPID report, led the court to conclude that the plaintiff’s account was less probable. The court held that the plaintiff did not discharge the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities, and that the defendant’s version—that the plaintiff fell while fleeing after insulting the...

Citation
[2017] ZAECGHC 122
Parties
Plaintiff: Nkosiyabo Bota; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 November 2017
Case Number
3910/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Merits Determined First
Outcome
Plaintiff’s claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
NG Beshe
Legal Topics
Police Assault, Onus of Proof, Mutually Destructive Versions, Credibility of Witnesses
Delict Police Assault Onus of Proof Mutually Destructive Versions Credibility of Witnesses

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nkosiyabo Bota

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Merits Determined First

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was unlawfully assaulted by members of the South African Police Service on 9 August 2013.
  2. 2 Whether the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were caused by police assault or by falling while fleeing.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff and his witness Mandla failed to mention in their contemporaneous statements to the police that the plaintiff was tackled or tripped to the ground, which was later introduced at trial as a key element of the plaintiff’s version. This omission, together with inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s evidence and the corroboration of the defendant’s version by police witnesses and the IPID report, led the court to conclude that the plaintiff’s account was less probable. The court held that the plaintiff did not discharge the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities, and that the defendant’s version—that the plaintiff fell while fleeing after insulting the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff’s claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is dismissed with costs.