Engelbrecht v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality [2023] ZAGPPHC 350; A85/2021 (4 May 2023)

Engelbrecht v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality [2023] ZAGPPHC 350; A85/2021 (4 May 2023)

The court found that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the respondent's employee unlawfully assaulted him. The evidence presented was mutually destructive, and the appellant's version was not corroborated by his witness, who did not observe the shooting. The respondent's version of accidental discharge during a physical altercation was consistent with the probabilities, given the appellant's conduct in fleeing the scene of two accidents and resisting arrest. The lack of expert evidence regarding the bullet trajectory rendered the appellant's physical evidence inconclusive. The court held that the trial court did not misdirect itself in accepting the respondent's...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 350
Parties
Appellant: Reino Marius Engelbrecht; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 May 2023
Case Number
A85/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Damages Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Baqwa, Steinberg, V. Tlhapi
Legal Topics
Unlawful Assault, Onus of Proof, Self Defence, Accidental Discharge, Damages for Personal Injury
Delict Civil Procedure Unlawful Assault Onus of Proof Self Defence Accidental Discharge Damages for Personal Injury

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reino Marius Engelbrecht

Appellant

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Damages Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's employee unlawfully and wrongfully assaulted the appellant by shooting and hitting him.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent proved a lawful excuse or justification for the alleged assault.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in accepting the respondent's version over the appellant's.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the respondent's employee unlawfully assaulted him. The evidence presented was mutually destructive, and the appellant's version was not corroborated by his witness, who did not observe the shooting. The respondent's version of accidental discharge during a physical altercation was consistent with the probabilities, given the appellant's conduct in fleeing the scene of two accidents and resisting arrest. The lack of expert evidence regarding the bullet trajectory rendered the appellant's physical evidence inconclusive. The court held that the trial court did not misdirect itself in accepting the respondent's...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including costs of counsel.