Malashe v Minister of Safety and Security (78/2013) [2016] ZAECMHC 24 (26 May 2016)

Malashe v Minister of Safety and Security (78/2013) [2016] ZAECMHC 24 (26 May 2016)

The court found the plaintiff's version of events, corroborated by witnesses and medical evidence, to be credible and more probable than the defendant's bare denial. The injuries observed by the medical examiner were consistent with the plaintiff's account of assault. The defendant failed to provide a plausible alternative explanation or credible evidence to refute the plaintiff's claims. The court held that the plaintiff was wrongfully and unlawfully assaulted by officials of the defendant and is entitled to damages. The quantum of damages was determined by considering the nature, severity, and circumstances of the assault, the humiliation suffered, and the plaintiff's age, resulting in...

Citation
[2016] ZAECMHC 24
Parties
Plaintiff: Malusi Malashe; Defendant: Minister of Safety & Security
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2016
Case Number
78/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for payment of damages.
Judges
N G Beshe
Legal Topics
Unlawful Assault, Damages for Pain and Suffering, Shock and Embarrassment, Onus of Proof, Credibility of Witnesses
Delict Unlawful Assault Damages for Pain and Suffering Shock and Embarrassment Onus of Proof Credibility of Witnesses

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

Parties

Malusi Malashe

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety & Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was unlawfully assaulted by officials of the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is liable for damages resulting from the alleged assault.
  3. 3 What is the appropriate quantum of damages for pain, suffering, shock, humiliation and contumelia.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff's version of events, corroborated by witnesses and medical evidence, to be credible and more probable than the defendant's bare denial. The injuries observed by the medical examiner were consistent with the plaintiff's account of assault. The defendant failed to provide a plausible alternative explanation or credible evidence to refute the plaintiff's claims. The court held that the plaintiff was wrongfully and unlawfully assaulted by officials of the defendant and is entitled to damages. The quantum of damages was determined by considering the nature, severity, and circumstances of the assault, the humiliation suffered, and the plaintiff's age, resulting in...

Court Disposition

Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for payment of damages.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R120,000.00 as general damages for pain and suffering.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R50,000.00 for shock, humiliation and contumelia.