Lolwane and Others v Minister of Safety and Security (22698/2002) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1045 (15 December 2016)

Lolwane and Others v Minister of Safety and Security (22698/2002) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1045 (15 December 2016)

The court found that the Defendant failed to justify the shooting of the First, Second, and Third Plaintiffs. The evidence presented by the police was exaggerated regarding the threat posed by the Plaintiffs and others present. The court concluded that the assaults were unlawful and intentional, and the Defendant is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 1045
Parties
Plaintiff: T L Lolwane; Plaintiff: W M Lolwane; Plaintiff: J Ramothibe; Plaintiff: M C Sekwele; Plaintiff: A Ramothibe; Plaintiff: M G Lolwane; Plaintiff: M R Lolwane; Plaintiff: Z E Lolwane; Plaintiff: M G Mahlanoko; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2016
Case Number
22698/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Judgment; Merits and Quantum Separated
Outcome
The Defendant is liable in delict for assault on the First, Second, and Third Plaintiffs; the claims for unlawful arrest are dismissed.
Judges
Rautenbach
Legal Topics
Unlawful Arrest, Assault by Police, Public Violence, Liability of State, Reasonable Suspicion, Costs Orders
Delict Civil Procedure Unlawful Arrest Assault by Police Public Violence Liability of State Reasonable Suspicion Costs Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T L Lolwane

Plaintiff

W M Lolwane

Plaintiff

J Ramothibe

Plaintiff

M C Sekwele

Plaintiff

A Ramothibe

Plaintiff

M G Lolwane

Plaintiff

M R Lolwane

Plaintiff

Z E Lolwane

Plaintiff

M G Mahlanoko

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Judgment; Merits and Quantum Separated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant is liable in delict for assault perpetrated on the First, Second and Third Plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the arrests of the Plaintiffs without a warrant were lawful and justified under section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendant failed to justify the shooting of the First, Second, and Third Plaintiffs. The evidence presented by the police was exaggerated regarding the threat posed by the Plaintiffs and others present. The court concluded that the assaults were unlawful and intentional, and the Defendant is liable in delict for these actions. Regarding the arrests, the court held that the investigating officer had access to comprehensive sworn statements describing a concerted attack, which provided sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion under section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Therefore, the arrests were lawful, and the claims for unlawful arrest failed. The...

Court Disposition

The Defendant is liable in delict for assault on the First, Second, and Third Plaintiffs; the claims for unlawful arrest are dismissed.

Orders

  • The Defendant is liable towards the First, Second and Third Plaintiffs in respect of an assault perpetrated by Montshiwagae.
  • The Defendant is ordered to pay 60% of the costs of the First, Second and Third Plaintiffs.