Minister van Wet en Orde v Gedula (8/1992) [1994] ZASCA 4; 1994 (3) SA 1 (AD); (8 March 1994)

Minister van Wet en Orde v Gedula (8/1992) [1994] ZASCA 4; 1994 (3) SA 1 (AD); (8 March 1994)

The court held that regulation 11 did not provide immunity to the appellant because the district where the incident occurred was not included in the schedule of districts under the state of emergency. Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish that the police officer's actions were intended to maintain public order in a district affected by the emergency regulations. The court found that the shooting was not justified under statutory provisions, and the appellant was liable for the damages suffered by Desmond and the respondent. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 4
Parties
Appellant: Minister van Wet en Orde; Respondent: Sophie Gedula
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 1994
Case Number
8/1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Van Heerden, Goldstone, Van den Heever, Harms, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Police Liability, Statutory Immunity, Personal Injury, Burden of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Police Liability Statutory Immunity Personal Injury 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister van Wet en Orde

Appellant

Sophie Gedula

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant could rely on statutory immunity under regulation 11 for actions taken by a police officer during unrest.
  2. 2 Whether the shooting of Desmond by Sergeant Hough was justified in terms of police powers and statutory provisions.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent proved liability for damages resulting from the shooting.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that regulation 11 did not provide immunity to the appellant because the district where the incident occurred was not included in the schedule of districts under the state of emergency. Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish that the police officer's actions were intended to maintain public order in a district affected by the emergency regulations. The court found that the shooting was not justified under statutory provisions, and the appellant was liable for the damages suffered by Desmond and the respondent. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including those of two advocates.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the damages as previously determined by the trial court.