Minister van Wet en Orde v Maseko (386/92) [1994] ZASCA 7 (15 March 1994)

Minister van Wet en Orde v Maseko (386/92) [1994] ZASCA 7 (15 March 1994)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent had discharged the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities that he was unlawfully shot by a member of the South African Police in Lekhulenistraat at the relevant time. The trial court correctly applied the burden of proof and made credibility findings in favour of the respondent and his witnesses, whose evidence was consistent and corroborated by independent testimony. The appellant failed to provide any evidence of justification for the shooting and did not call the relevant police officers to testify. The forensic expert's evidence did not render the respondent's version impossible. The probabilities, based on the proven facts...

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 7
Parties
Appellant: Minister van Wet en Orde; Respondent: Spencer Maseko
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 March 1994
Case Number
386/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. Substitution of plaintiff granted; Ephraim Maseko replaced by Spencer Maseko as respondent.
Judges
Botha, F H Grosskopf, Olivier
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Unlawful Police Conduct, Burden of Proof, Damages for Personal Injury
Delict Vicarious Liability Unlawful Police Conduct Burden of Proof Damages for Personal Injury

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister van Wet en Orde

Appellant

Spencer Maseko

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent proved on a balance of probabilities that he was unlawfully shot by a member of the South African Police in Lekhulenistraat at the relevant time.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was vicariously liable for the conduct of the police officer.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant discharged the burden of proving justification for the shooting.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent had discharged the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities that he was unlawfully shot by a member of the South African Police in Lekhulenistraat at the relevant time. The trial court correctly applied the burden of proof and made credibility findings in favour of the respondent and his witnesses, whose evidence was consistent and corroborated by independent testimony. The appellant failed to provide any evidence of justification for the shooting and did not call the relevant police officers to testify. The forensic expert's evidence did not render the respondent's version impossible. The probabilities, based on the proven facts...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. Substitution of plaintiff granted; Ephraim Maseko replaced by Spencer Maseko as respondent.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The substitution of Ephraim Maseko by Spencer Maseko as plaintiff is granted.