Mathunyane v Minister of Police (35598/2014) [2018] ZAGPPHC 267 (26 January 2018)

Mathunyane v Minister of Police (35598/2014) [2018] ZAGPPHC 267 (26 January 2018)

The court found the plaintiff's version of events more probable than that of the defendant. The plaintiff's evidence was consistent, credible, and corroborated by an eyewitness. The conduct of the police in failing to record the injury in the occurrence book and the subsequent medical treatment supported the plaintiff's claim that the injury occurred during the arrest. The defendant's denial was undermined by the police officer's admission of noticing a stitch mark and the absence of proper documentation. The court concluded that the plaintiff was assaulted by police officers during his arrest, and the defendant is liable for the damages resulting from the assault.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 267
Parties
Plaintiff: Mathunyane Tsharara Richard; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 January 2018
Case Number
35598/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Quantum Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff on liability; defendant liable for 100% of proven or agreed damages arising from the assault.
Judges
S S Mphahlele
Legal Topics
Assault by Police, Damages for Personal Injury, Burden of Proof, Credibility of Witnesses
Delict Civil Procedure Assault by Police Damages for Personal Injury Burden 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathunyane Tsharara Richard

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Quantum Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was assaulted by members of the South African Police Services during his arrest on 11 July 2011.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is liable for damages arising from the alleged assault.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's injury was caused during the arrest or at another time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff's version of events more probable than that of the defendant. The plaintiff's evidence was consistent, credible, and corroborated by an eyewitness. The conduct of the police in failing to record the injury in the occurrence book and the subsequent medical treatment supported the plaintiff's claim that the injury occurred during the arrest. The defendant's denial was undermined by the police officer's admission of noticing a stitch mark and the absence of proper documentation. The court concluded that the plaintiff was assaulted by police officers during his arrest, and the defendant is liable for the damages resulting from the assault.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff on liability; defendant liable for 100% of proven or agreed damages arising from the assault.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable to pay 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages caused by the assault on the plaintiff on 11 July 2011.
  • The defendant is to pay the costs.