Lehlehla v Minister of Police (13151/2014) [2022] ZAWCHC 235; [2023] 1 All SA 438 (WCC) (17 November 2022)

Lehlehla v Minister of Police (13151/2014) [2022] ZAWCHC 235; [2023] 1 All SA 438 (WCC) (17 November 2022)

The court found that the SAPS members were justified in firing rubber bullets due to necessity. They were hopelessly outnumbered by a violent crowd, had no access to alternative crowd control methods such as teargas or water cannons, and were compelled to act to protect life and property. The firing was not random...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZAWCHC 235
Parties
Plaintiff: Dibakiso Alleta Lehlehla; Defendant: The Minister of Police
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 November 2022
Case Number
13151/2014
Procedural Posture
Delict Claim / Merits Only; Quantum Separated
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
J I Cloete
Legal Topics
Necessity, Police Use of Force, Voluntary Assumption of Risk, Contributory Negligence, Crowd Control, Rubber Bullet Injury
Delict Civil Procedure Necessity Police Use of Force Voluntary Assumption of Risk Contributory Negligence Crowd Control Rubber Bullet Injury

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dibakiso Alleta Lehlehla

Plaintiff

The Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delict Claim / Merits Only; Quantum Separated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SAPS members acted wrongfully or negligently in firing rubber bullets resulting in the plaintiff's injury.
  2. 2 Whether the SAPS members' conduct was justified by necessity under the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk by entering the area of protest.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the SAPS members were justified in firing rubber bullets due to necessity. They were hopelessly outnumbered by a violent crowd, had no access to alternative crowd control methods such as teargas or water cannons, and were compelled to act to protect life and property. The firing was not random or directed at the crowd but into the ground as trained, and there was no evidence of excessive force or direct targeting. The plaintiff, by entering the area of protest despite clear signs of unrest and gunfire, voluntarily assumed the risk of injury. The pleaded case did not establish a factual basis for liability against the SAPS members present, nor did it properly allege...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs.