Monareng v Minister of Police (2081/2020) [2025] ZAFSHC 229 (5 August 2025)

Monareng v Minister of Police (2081/2020) [2025] ZAFSHC 229 (5 August 2025)

The court found that the SAPS Special Task Force members acted lawfully and within the bounds of section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The operation was based on credible intelligence regarding dangerous suspects involved in violent crimes. The SAPS members were properly briefed, used marked vehicles and a helicopter, and attempted a box-in manoeuvre to effect arrest. The plaintiff's vehicle fled, and shots were fired at the police from the suspect vehicle. Forensic evidence linked the plaintiff to the firearm found in the vehicle, which had an erased serial number and was unlicensed. The force used by the SAPS was aimed at immobilising the vehicle and was not excessive or intended to...

Citation
[2025] ZAFSHC 229
Parties
Plaintiff: Simon Molefi Monareng; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 August 2025
Case Number
2081/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims dismissed on the merits with costs, including costs of two counsel on scale C and all reserved costs.
Judges
Opperman
Legal Topics
Use of Force in Arrest, Section 49 Criminal Procedure Act, Vicarious Liability, Damages for Police Shooting, Onus of Proof, Proportionality of Force
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Use of Force in Arrest Section 49 Criminal Procedure Act Vicarious Liability Damages for Police Shooting Onus of Proof Proportionality of Force

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

Simon Molefi Monareng

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the SAPS members possess a reasonable belief that the use of lethal force was necessary in the circumstances?
  2. 2 Was the force used proportional to the threat posed by the suspects?
  3. 3 Were less drastic means of effecting the arrest available and feasible?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the SAPS Special Task Force members acted lawfully and within the bounds of section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The operation was based on credible intelligence regarding dangerous suspects involved in violent crimes. The SAPS members were properly briefed, used marked vehicles and a helicopter, and attempted a box-in manoeuvre to effect arrest. The plaintiff's vehicle fled, and shots were fired at the police from the suspect vehicle. Forensic evidence linked the plaintiff to the firearm found in the vehicle, which had an erased serial number and was unlicensed. The force used by the SAPS was aimed at immobilising the vehicle and was not excessive or intended to...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims dismissed on the merits with costs, including costs of two counsel on scale C and all reserved costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claims are dismissed on the merits.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant's costs, including costs of two counsel on scale C, to be taxed in terms of uniform rule 67A.