Letsie v McCallum (597/90) [1992] ZASCA 108 (1 June 1992)

Letsie v McCallum (597/90) [1992] ZASCA 108 (1 June 1992)

The court found that the respondent was not entitled to the protection of section 49(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the appellant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to heed the warning before being shot. The warning and the shot were virtually simultaneous, leaving the appellant insufficient time to respond. Furthermore, the respondent's use of force was excessive and unreasonable, as he could have fired a warning shot safely without risking injury to the appellant. The respondent's conduct was negligent, failing to meet the standard of care required by law. The appellant was not guilty of contributory negligence, as his conduct did not cause the shooting. The appeal...

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 108
Parties
Appellant: Dira Letsie; Respondent: Robert Thomson McCallum
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 1992
Case Number
597/90
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; judgment granted in favour of the appellant.
Judges
Van Heerden, Nestadt, Goldstone
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Unlawful Assault, Use of Force in Arrest, Criminal Procedure Act Section 49
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Contributory Negligence Unlawful Assault Use of Force in Arrest Criminal Procedure Act Section 49

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dira Letsie

Appellant

Robert Thomson McCallum

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's shooting of the appellant was justified under section 49(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent acted negligently in firing the shot that injured the appellant.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to heed the warning before being shot.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was not entitled to the protection of section 49(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the appellant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to heed the warning before being shot. The warning and the shot were virtually simultaneous, leaving the appellant insufficient time to respond. Furthermore, the respondent's use of force was excessive and unreasonable, as he could have fired a warning shot safely without risking injury to the appellant. The respondent's conduct was negligent, failing to meet the standard of care required by law. The appellant was not guilty of contributory negligence, as his conduct did not cause the shooting. The appeal...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; judgment granted in favour of the appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs, including costs occasioned by applications for leave to appeal, but excluding costs of the application for condonation dated 7 November 1990.
  • The order of the trial court is set aside and substituted with judgment in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of R525 000.