Dyonashe v Ministry of Safety and Security (CA222/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 120 (20 November 2018)

Dyonashe v Ministry of Safety and Security (CA222/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 120 (20 November 2018)

The magistrate misdirected himself by rejecting the appellant's direct and uncontradicted evidence regarding the shooting. He relied on speculation and general police testimony unrelated to the specific incident. There was no evidence justifying the shooting, and the adverse credibility findings against the appellant were unwarranted. The only reasonable inference from the evidence is that the SAPS member acted unlawfully and either intentionally or negligently. The respondent is therefore liable for damages arising from the incident.

Citation
[2018] ZAECGHC 120
Parties
Appellant: Asonge Dyonashe; Respondent: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 2018
Case Number
CA222/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Damages Claim; Quantum Remitted to Trial Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; liability established against respondent; quantum of damages remitted to trial court.
Judges
C Plasket, V Nqumse
Legal Topics
Unlawful Police Conduct, Liability for Police Actions, Quantification of Damages
Delict Civil Procedure Unlawful Police Conduct Liability for Police Actions Quantification of Damages

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asonge Dyonashe

Appellant

Minister of Safety and Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Damages Claim; Quantum Remitted to Trial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the shooting of the appellant by a SAPS member was unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate erred in rejecting the appellant's evidence and dismissing her claim.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is liable for damages arising from the shooting incident.

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate misdirected himself by rejecting the appellant's direct and uncontradicted evidence regarding the shooting. He relied on speculation and general police testimony unrelated to the specific incident. There was no evidence justifying the shooting, and the adverse credibility findings against the appellant were unwarranted. The only reasonable inference from the evidence is that the SAPS member acted unlawfully and either intentionally or negligently. The respondent is therefore liable for damages arising from the incident.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; liability established against respondent; quantum of damages remitted to trial court.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court below is set aside and replaced with a declaration of liability against the defendant for damages arising from the incident on 21 October 2015.