Mandhlaami v Minister of Police (7279/2013) [2017] ZAWCHC 33 (29 March 2017)

Mandhlaami v Minister of Police (7279/2013) [2017] ZAWCHC 33 (29 March 2017)

The court found that the police were lawfully deployed to restore public order during a violent and destructive strike in the Hex River Valley. The use of rubber bullets was justified as less forceful methods had proved ineffective or were unavailable. The police acted in accordance with statutory and standing order requirements, using force only when necessary and in a measured manner. The plaintiff's evidence regarding his whereabouts and conduct was questionable, but there was no direct evidence to contradict his claim that he was shot while not participating in the protest. Nevertheless, the defence of necessity was established, as the police were acting to protect life and property...

Citation
[2017] ZAWCHC 33
Parties
Plaintiff: Passmore Mandhlaami; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2017
Case Number
7279/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Stood Over
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Gamble
Legal Topics
Public Order Policing, Use of Force, Necessity, Voluntary Assumption of Risk, Rubber Bullet Injury, Crowd Management
Delict Civil Procedure Public Order Policing Use of Force Necessity Voluntary Assumption of Risk Rubber Bullet Injury Crowd Management

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Passmore Mandhlaami

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Stood Over

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police's use of rubber bullets during crowd control was lawful and justified under the circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was injured as a result of excessive or unlawful force by the police.
  3. 3 Whether the defences of necessity, self-defence, voluntary assumption of risk, or contributory negligence apply to the plaintiff's claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the police were lawfully deployed to restore public order during a violent and destructive strike in the Hex River Valley. The use of rubber bullets was justified as less forceful methods had proved ineffective or were unavailable. The police acted in accordance with statutory and standing order requirements, using force only when necessary and in a measured manner. The plaintiff's evidence regarding his whereabouts and conduct was questionable, but there was no direct evidence to contradict his claim that he was shot while not participating in the protest. Nevertheless, the defence of necessity was established, as the police were acting to protect life and property...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.