Dookhi v Troskie (23114/2010) [2011] ZAGPPHC 180 (30 September 2011)

Dookhi v Troskie (23114/2010) [2011] ZAGPPHC 180 (30 September 2011)

The court found that although the defendant may have genuinely believed the plaintiff posed a threat after the initial altercation, once inside his house, the danger was no longer imminent. The defendant had reasonable alternatives, such as remaining inside and waiting for police or armed response, or firing a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 180
Parties
Plaintiff: Sanjay Mohalnlal Dookhi; Defendant: Morne Troskie
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2011
Case Number
23114/2010
Procedural Posture
Delictual Claim / Trial
Outcome
Defendant found liable for 100 percent of the plaintiff's proved or agreed damages resulting from the shooting incident.
Judges
T M Makgoka
Legal Topics
Self Defence, Bodily Integrity, Onus of Proof, Damages for Injury
Delict Self Defence Bodily Integrity Onus of Proof Damages for Injury

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sanjay Mohalnlal Dookhi

Plaintiff

Morne Troskie

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delictual Claim / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant acted in lawful self-defence when shooting the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff posed an imminent danger to the defendant at the time of the shooting.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant had reasonable alternatives to avoid the threatened harm.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the defendant may have genuinely believed the plaintiff posed a threat after the initial altercation, once inside his house, the danger was no longer imminent. The defendant had reasonable alternatives, such as remaining inside and waiting for police or armed response, or firing a warning shot, rather than shooting the plaintiff. The plaintiff's presence outside the defendant's property did not constitute imminent danger, and the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the shooting was justified as self-defence. Therefore, the defendant's conduct was wrongful and he is liable for the plaintiff's damages.

Court Disposition

Defendant found liable for 100 percent of the plaintiff's proved or agreed damages resulting from the shooting incident.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay 100 percent of the plaintiff's proved or agreed damages resulting from the injuries sustained during the shooting incident on 10 November 2010.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.