Dlamini v Configen Close Corporations t/a Zero Tolerance Security (5711/2019) [2023] ZAFSHC 467 (30 November 2023)

Dlamini v Configen Close Corporations t/a Zero Tolerance Security (5711/2019) [2023] ZAFSHC 467 (30 November 2023)

The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities that he was shot by an employee of the defendant. There was no direct evidence linking the defendant's employees to the shooting, and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient. The identification of security personnel by uniform was inconclusive, and there was no evidence that the defendant's employees were armed or fired the shot. Documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiff was inadmissible hearsay, as its contents were not admitted nor qualified under any exception. The defendant's plea did not admit liability and referred to actions by other agencies. Accordingly, the plaintiff's case was not...

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 467
Parties
Plaintiff: Xolani Thokozane Dlamini; Defendant: Configen Close Corporations t/a Zero Tolerance Security
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 2023
Case Number
5711/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Separation of Issues Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; absolution from the instance granted.
Judges
PJJ Zietsmann
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Circumstantial Evidence, Absolution From the Instance, Hearsay Evidence, Burden of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Vicarious Liability Circumstantial Evidence Absolution From the Instance Hearsay Evidence Burden 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Xolani Thokozane Dlamini

Plaintiff

Configen Close Corporations t/a Zero Tolerance Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Separation of Issues Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to bring the claim.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was shot by an employee of the defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the shooting was lawful if committed by the defendant's employee.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities that he was shot by an employee of the defendant. There was no direct evidence linking the defendant's employees to the shooting, and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient. The identification of security personnel by uniform was inconclusive, and there was no evidence that the defendant's employees were armed or fired the shot. Documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiff was inadmissible hearsay, as its contents were not admitted nor qualified under any exception. The defendant's plea did not admit liability and referred to actions by other agencies. Accordingly, the plaintiff's case was not...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; absolution from the instance granted.

Orders

  • Absolution from the instance is granted in favour of the defendant.
  • No order as to costs is made.