Minister van Wet en Orde en 'n Ander v Ntsane (334/1991) [1992] ZASCA 210; 1993 (1) SA 560 (AD); [1993] 4 All SA 203 (AD); [1993] 1 All SA 425 (A) (26 November 1992)

Minister van Wet en Orde en 'n Ander v Ntsane (334/1991) [1992] ZASCA 210; 1993 (1) SA 560 (AD); [1993] 4 All SA 203 (AD); [1993] 1 All SA 425 (A) (26 November 1992)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proving that warnings were given before the respondent was shot. The evidence did not establish that the use of force was reasonable or justified under section 49(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The respondent's flight after lawful arrest was a crime, but the police were required to act reasonably in attempting to re-arrest him. The court found that the second appellant intentionally shot the respondent without prior warning, which constituted unlawful conduct. The argument that contributory negligence should reduce damages was rejected, as the injury was caused intentionally and the Apportionment of...

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 210
Parties
Appellant: Minister van Wet en Orde; Appellant: Konstabel Molahloe; Respondent: Conrad Ntsane
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 1992
Case Number
334/1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Heerden, Kumleben, F H Grosskopf, Howie, Harms
Legal Topics
Unlawful Arrest, Use of Force by Police, Contributory Negligence, Damages, Burden of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Unlawful Arrest Use of Force by Police Contributory Negligence Damages Burden of Proof

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister van Wet en Orde

Appellant

Konstabel Molahloe

Appellant

Conrad Ntsane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the shooting of the respondent by the second appellant was lawful under section 49(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants discharged the burden of proving that warnings were given before the shot was fired.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's contributory negligence could reduce damages under the Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proving that warnings were given before the respondent was shot. The evidence did not establish that the use of force was reasonable or justified under section 49(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The respondent's flight after lawful arrest was a crime, but the police were required to act reasonably in attempting to re-arrest him. The court found that the second appellant intentionally shot the respondent without prior warning, which constituted unlawful conduct. The argument that contributory negligence should reduce damages was rejected, as the injury was caused intentionally and the Apportionment of...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay the respondent R100,000.00, interest, and costs as previously ordered.