Matebesi v Minister of Police (1313/2020) [2024] ZAFSHC 405 (13 December 2024)

Matebesi v Minister of Police (1313/2020) [2024] ZAFSHC 405 (13 December 2024)

The court found that the plaintiff was shot in the back by Sergeant Nyamane while running away, and that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving justification or self-defence. The evidence presented by the defendant was riddled with contradictions and improbabilities, and the version of events offered by Sergeant Nyamane and Sergeant Lesimola was rejected as false and tailored to avoid liability. The plaintiff’s account was found to be more probable and credible regarding the circumstances of the shooting. The court held that Sergeant Nyamane’s conduct was wrongful and unlawful, and that the defendant is vicariously liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. Costs...

Citation
[2024] ZAFSHC 405
Parties
Plaintiff: Tumelo Isaac Matebesi; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2024
Case Number
1313/2020
Procedural Posture
Delictual Action / Merits Only; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant held liable for 100% of proven or agreed damages arising from the shooting incident.
Judges
Van Rhyn
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Unlawful Assault, Onus of Justification, Self Defence, Credibility of Witnesses
Delict Civil Procedure Vicarious Liability Unlawful Assault Onus of Justification Self Defence 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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tumelo Isaac Matebesi

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delictual Action / Merits Only; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the shooting of the plaintiff by a SAPS member was unlawful and wrongful.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant discharged the onus of proving justification or self-defence.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was shot in the back by Sergeant Nyamane while running away, and that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving justification or self-defence. The evidence presented by the defendant was riddled with contradictions and improbabilities, and the version of events offered by Sergeant Nyamane and Sergeant Lesimola was rejected as false and tailored to avoid liability. The plaintiff’s account was found to be more probable and credible regarding the circumstances of the shooting. The court held that Sergeant Nyamane’s conduct was wrongful and unlawful, and that the defendant is vicariously liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. Costs...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant held liable for 100% of proven or agreed damages arising from the shooting incident.

Orders

  • The Defendant is held liable for 100% of such damages, if any, as may be proven by the Plaintiff or agreed upon between the parties, in consequence of the shooting incident that occurred on 10 January 2019.
  • The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff’s taxed or agreed party and party costs to date of this order, including the Plaintiff’s counsel fees on Scale B as provided for in Rule 67A read with Rule 69.