Minister of Safety and Security and Another v Hendricks (153/2008) [2008] ZAECHC 207 (18 December 2008)

Minister of Safety and Security and Another v Hendricks (153/2008) [2008] ZAECHC 207 (18 December 2008)

The appeal court found that the trial judge's credibility findings in favour of the respondent's witnesses, particularly Inspectors Pietersen and Crawford, were sound and supported by the evidence. Their account of the second appellant's admissions contradicted his defence of self-defence and rendered his version unreliable. The appellants failed to discharge the onus of proving that the force used was lawful and justified. The trial court's findings were not vitiated by any material misdirection, and the probabilities overwhelmingly favoured the respondent. The application for condonation was granted due to considerations of fairness, but the appeal itself was dismissed as the appellants...

Citation
[2008] ZAECHC 207
Parties
Appellant: Minister of Safety and Security; Appellant: Johnny Emmanuel Boesak; Respondent: Dean Clinton Hendricks
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 December 2008
Case Number
153/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Trial Court's Finding on Liability for Damages
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. Application for condonation granted; respondent to pay costs of condonation application, including costs of opposition.
Judges
Jones, Chetty, Pillay
Legal Topics
Assault, Onus of Proof, Self Defence, Credibility of Witnesses, Damages, Condonation
Delict Civil Procedure Assault Onus of Proof Self Defence Credibility of Witnesses Damages Condonation

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Safety and Security

Appellant

Johnny Emmanuel Boesak

Appellant

Dean Clinton Hendricks

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Trial Court's Finding on Liability for Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court correctly found the appellants liable for damages arising from an alleged assault by a police officer.
  2. 2 Whether the defence of self-defence was established on a balance of probabilities.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court's credibility findings regarding key witnesses should be disturbed on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that the trial judge's credibility findings in favour of the respondent's witnesses, particularly Inspectors Pietersen and Crawford, were sound and supported by the evidence. Their account of the second appellant's admissions contradicted his defence of self-defence and rendered his version unreliable. The appellants failed to discharge the onus of proving that the force used was lawful and justified. The trial court's findings were not vitiated by any material misdirection, and the probabilities overwhelmingly favoured the respondent. The application for condonation was granted due to considerations of fairness, but the appeal itself was dismissed as the appellants...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. Application for condonation granted; respondent to pay costs of condonation application, including costs of opposition.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is granted.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application for condonation, including the costs of opposition.