Kunene v Minister of Police (32422/2015) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1003 (7 September 2023)

Kunene v Minister of Police (32422/2015) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1003 (7 September 2023)

The court found that Sgt Yende fired the shot that injured the plaintiff. The evidence did not support the defendant's claim that the plaintiff posed any threat or attempted to harm the police officer. Sgt Yende's own testimony indicated that the plaintiff's vehicle had already passed him when the shots were fired, and no weapons were found on the plaintiff or in his vehicle. The defendant failed to discharge the onus to prove that the shooting was justified by self-defence or putative self-defence. The police officers' evidence was inconsistent and lacked credibility. Accordingly, the shooting constituted an unlawful assault, and the defendant is liable for the plaintiff's damages.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1003
Parties
Plaintiff: Kunene Irvin Ayanda; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 September 2023
Case Number
32422/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Only; Damages to Be Determined
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff on liability; defendant to compensate plaintiff for proven or agreed damages.
Judges
Dlamini
Legal Topics
Unlawful Assault, Self Defence, Onus of Proof, Damages, Police Misconduct
Delict Civil Procedure Unlawful Assault Self Defence Onus of Proof Damages Police Misconduct

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kunene Irvin Ayanda

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Only; Damages to Be Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who fired the gunshot that injured the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the police officer was acting in self-defence or putative self-defence when shooting the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant discharged the onus to prove lawful conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Sgt Yende fired the shot that injured the plaintiff. The evidence did not support the defendant's claim that the plaintiff posed any threat or attempted to harm the police officer. Sgt Yende's own testimony indicated that the plaintiff's vehicle had already passed him when the shots were fired, and no weapons were found on the plaintiff or in his vehicle. The defendant failed to discharge the onus to prove that the shooting was justified by self-defence or putative self-defence. The police officers' evidence was inconsistent and lacked credibility. Accordingly, the shooting constituted an unlawful assault, and the defendant is liable for the plaintiff's damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff on liability; defendant to compensate plaintiff for proven or agreed damages.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to compensate the plaintiff for all his proven or agreed damage arising from the unlawful assault perpetrated on him.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the plaintiff.