Minister of Safety and Security v Ntamo and Others (389/01) [2002] ZASCA 127; 2003 (1) SA 547 (SCA) (26 September 2002)

Minister of Safety and Security v Ntamo and Others (389/01) [2002] ZASCA 127; 2003 (1) SA 547 (SCA) (26 September 2002)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the evidence presented by the police officers was inconsistent and riddled with contradictions regarding the circumstances of the shooting. There was no clear or credible evidence that the deceased posed an imminent threat to the officers or the public at the time he was shot....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] ZASCA 127
Parties
Appellant: Minister of Safety and Security; Respondent: Nosiseko Joyce Ntamo and her minor children
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 September 2002
Case Number
389/01
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Liability Finding in High Court; Quantum Separated; Appeal Heard on Merits Only
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Hefer, Farlam, Navsa, Mpati, Jones
Legal Topics
Loss of Support, Justification for Use of Force, Onus of Proof, Fatal Shooting by Police
Delict Loss of Support Justification for Use of Force Onus of Proof Fatal Shooting by Police

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Safety and Security

Appellant

Nosiseko Joyce Ntamo and her minor children

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Liability Finding in High Court; Quantum Separated; Appeal Heard on Merits Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fatal shooting of the deceased by police was justified.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant discharged the onus to prove justification for the shooting.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are entitled to damages for loss of support.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the evidence presented by the police officers was inconsistent and riddled with contradictions regarding the circumstances of the shooting. There was no clear or credible evidence that the deceased posed an imminent threat to the officers or the public at the time he was shot. The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving justification for the fatal shooting. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the respondents' entitlement to damages for loss of support was confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.