Engelbrecht v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (75626/2016) [2020] ZAGPPHC 776 (29 December 2020)

Engelbrecht v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (75626/2016) [2020] ZAGPPHC 776 (29 December 2020)

The court found that the plaintiff was the author of his own misfortune, having failed to stop after two collisions and having engaged in a physical altercation with Officer Mapatshoe. The officer had reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff of offences and acted to effect a lawful arrest. The discharge of the firearm occurred during a struggle, and the evidence supported the officer's version that he acted in self-defence and did not intentionally shoot the plaintiff. The plaintiff's conduct exposed him to foreseeable risks, and the requirements for the defences of self-defence and necessity were met. The plaintiff's claim was not corroborated by independent witnesses, and the...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 776
Parties
Plaintiff: R M Engelbrecht; Defendant: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 December 2020
Case Number
75626/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Phase; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Gumbi
Legal Topics
Assault by Police Officer, Self Defence, Necessity, Volenti Non Fit Iniuria, Liability for Police Actions
Delict Civil Procedure Assault by Police Officer Self Defence Necessity Volenti Non Fit Iniuria Liability for Police Actions

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R M Engelbrecht

Plaintiff

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Phase; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is delictually liable for injuries sustained by the plaintiff as a result of being shot and assaulted by a Metro Police officer.
  2. 2 Whether the defences of accidental discharge, self-defence, necessity, and volenti non fit iniuria raised by the defendant are sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was the author of his own misfortune, having failed to stop after two collisions and having engaged in a physical altercation with Officer Mapatshoe. The officer had reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff of offences and acted to effect a lawful arrest. The discharge of the firearm occurred during a struggle, and the evidence supported the officer's version that he acted in self-defence and did not intentionally shoot the plaintiff. The plaintiff's conduct exposed him to foreseeable risks, and the requirements for the defences of self-defence and necessity were met. The plaintiff's claim was not corroborated by independent witnesses, and the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.