Kgalane v Minister of Police (514/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 2 (5 January 2024)

Kgalane v Minister of Police (514/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 2 (5 January 2024)

The Plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that he was shot by police officers acting within the scope of their employment in the location, not on the R30 road as alleged by the Defendant. The Defendant's denial was contradicted by documentary evidence (IRIS report) and the testimony of its own witness, which established that police units operated in the location and fired over 70 rubber bullets on the day in question. The Plaintiff's version was corroborated by witnesses and not materially disputed. The Defendant failed to plead or prove any justification for the shooting or to rebut the Plaintiff's evidence. The conduct of the police was wrongful and negligent, and there was a...

Citation
[2024] ZAFSHC 2
Parties
Plaintiff: Mohlabane Kgalane; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 January 2024
Case Number
514/2022
Procedural Posture
Delictual Claim / Liability Trial (merits Separated From Quantum)
Outcome
The Defendant is liable for 100% of the Plaintiff's proven or agreed damages and for the Plaintiff's costs of trial. Each party bears their own costs for the application to compel.
Judges
Molitsoane
Legal Topics
Actio Iniuriarum, Bodily Integrity, Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Rubber Bullet Injury
Delict Actio Iniuriarum Bodily Integrity Negligence Vicarious Liability Rubber Bullet 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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohlabane Kgalane

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delictual Claim / Liability Trial (merits Separated From Quantum)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant is liable for the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff when shot in the leg.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff was shot in the location by police acting within their scope of duty and employment.

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that he was shot by police officers acting within the scope of their employment in the location, not on the R30 road as alleged by the Defendant. The Defendant's denial was contradicted by documentary evidence (IRIS report) and the testimony of its own witness, which established that police units operated in the location and fired over 70 rubber bullets on the day in question. The Plaintiff's version was corroborated by witnesses and not materially disputed. The Defendant failed to plead or prove any justification for the shooting or to rebut the Plaintiff's evidence. The conduct of the police was wrongful and negligent, and there was a...

Court Disposition

The Defendant is liable for 100% of the Plaintiff's proven or agreed damages and for the Plaintiff's costs of trial. Each party bears their own costs for the application to compel.

Orders

  • The Defendant is liable for 100% of the Plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.
  • The Defendant is liable for the Plaintiff's costs of the trial.