Minister of Law and Order v Monti (595/92) [1994] ZASCA 139; 1995 (1) SA 35 (AD); [1995] 1 All SA 464 (A) (29 September 1994)

Minister of Law and Order v Monti (595/92) [1994] ZASCA 139; 1995 (1) SA 35 (AD); [1995] 1 All SA 464 (A) (29 September 1994)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the defendant's plea admitted the assault and pleaded justification, constituting a true case of confession and avoidance. The onus of proving justification for the shooting therefore rested on the defendant. The minor differences in the time and location of the shooting did not traverse the plaintiff's cause of action, which was that the defendant's servant shot him intentionally. The court found no basis for the contention that the plea related to a different shooting incident. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the onus was correctly placed on the defendant.

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 139
Parties
Appellant: Minister of Law and Order; Respondent: Jack Nontingana Monti
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 1994
Case Number
595/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal on Onus Regarding Justification for Assault
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Joubert, Van Heerden, E M Grosskopf, Vivier, Van Den Heever
Legal Topics
Onus of Proof, Confession and Avoidance, Justification for Assault, Bodily Integrity
Delict Onus of Proof Confession and Avoidance Justification for Assault Bodily Integrity

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Law and Order

Appellant

Jack Nontingana Monti

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal on Onus Regarding Justification for Assault

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the onus of proving justification for the shooting rested on the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the plea constituted a true case of confession and avoidance.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's plea traversed the plaintiff's cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the defendant's plea admitted the assault and pleaded justification, constituting a true case of confession and avoidance. The onus of proving justification for the shooting therefore rested on the defendant. The minor differences in the time and location of the shooting did not traverse the plaintiff's cause of action, which was that the defendant's servant shot him intentionally. The court found no basis for the contention that the plea related to a different shooting incident. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the onus was correctly placed on the defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.