Mngomezulu v Ethekwini Metropolitan Municipality (079/2018) [2019] ZASCA 91 (3 June 2019)

Mngomezulu v Ethekwini Metropolitan Municipality (079/2018) [2019] ZASCA 91 (3 June 2019)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his dwelling was unlawfully demolished by the respondent. The evidence supported the finding that only newly built, incomplete, and uninhabited structures were demolished in accordance with a valid court order. The appellant was found to be the aggressor in the confrontation with the respondent's employee, having approached armed with a spear and ignoring repeated warnings. The shooting was a reasonable act of self-defence under the circumstances. The court further held that the claim for damages was delictual in nature and did not raise constitutional issues warranting the application...

Citation
[2019] ZASCA 91
Parties
Appellant: Nkosinathi Wiseman Mngomezulu; Respondent: Ethekwini Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 June 2019
Case Number
079/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal Division, Durban
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs (majority); minority would have upheld the appeal on costs and ordered each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
Leach, Dambuza, Molemela, Schippers, Eksteen
Legal Topics
Unlawful Eviction, Self Defence, Damages for Assault, Constitutional Right to Housing, Costs in Constitutional Litigation, Municipal Obligations
Delict Land and Property Constitutional Law Unlawful Eviction Self Defence Damages for Assault Constitutional Right to Housing Costs in Constitutional Litigation +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nkosinathi Wiseman Mngomezulu

Appellant

Ethekwini Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal Division, Durban

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant proved the unlawful demolition of his dwelling by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the shooting of the appellant by the respondent's employee constituted unlawful assault or was justified as self-defence.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's defensive actions were reasonable and taken against imminent aggression.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his dwelling was unlawfully demolished by the respondent. The evidence supported the finding that only newly built, incomplete, and uninhabited structures were demolished in accordance with a valid court order. The appellant was found to be the aggressor in the confrontation with the respondent's employee, having approached armed with a spear and ignoring repeated warnings. The shooting was a reasonable act of self-defence under the circumstances. The court further held that the claim for damages was delictual in nature and did not raise constitutional issues warranting the application...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs (majority); minority would have upheld the appeal on costs and ordered each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.