Masasa v Minister Of Safety And Security (22558/2005) [2009] ZAGPPHC 379 (11 November 2009)

Masasa v Minister Of Safety And Security (22558/2005) [2009] ZAGPPHC 379 (11 November 2009)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof required to establish that he was wrongfully assaulted and arrested by the police. The plaintiff's version was not corroborated by any witnesses, despite reference to several potential witnesses in his written statement. No medical evidence was presented to substantiate the alleged injuries. The defendant's version, supported by police statements, was found to be more probable. In light of the lack of supporting evidence and contradictions in the plaintiff's testimony, the court held that the probabilities did not favour the plaintiff. Accordingly, absolution from the instance was granted, and the plaintiff was...

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 379
Parties
Plaintiff: Keogaile Samuel Masasa; Defendant: Minister Of Safety And Security
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 November 2009
Case Number
22558/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim not proven; absolution from the instance granted.
Judges
Ismail
Legal Topics
Wrongful Arrest, Assault by Police, Onus of Proof, Absolution From the Instance
Delict Civil Procedure Wrongful Arrest Assault by Police Onus of Proof Absolution From the Instance

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keogaile Samuel Masasa

Plaintiff

Minister Of Safety And Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was wrongfully and unlawfully assaulted and arrested by members of the South African Police Services.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proof on the merits of his claim for damages.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's version of events is more probable than the plaintiff's.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proof required to establish that he was wrongfully assaulted and arrested by the police. The plaintiff's version was not corroborated by any witnesses, despite reference to several potential witnesses in his written statement. No medical evidence was presented to substantiate the alleged injuries. The defendant's version, supported by police statements, was found to be more probable. In light of the lack of supporting evidence and contradictions in the plaintiff's testimony, the court held that the probabilities did not favour the plaintiff. Accordingly, absolution from the instance was granted, and the plaintiff was...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim not proven; absolution from the instance granted.

Orders

  • Absolution from the instance is granted.
  • Plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the action.