Ngwenya v Minister of Safety and Security (2006/22220) [2012] ZAGPJHC 212 (24 October 2012)

Ngwenya v Minister of Safety and Security (2006/22220) [2012] ZAGPJHC 212 (24 October 2012)

The plaintiff's evidence was unchallenged and established that he was shot by a police officer while not being a suspect or the object of arrest. The police failed to provide any justification for the use of deadly force, and the circumstances did not meet the statutory requirements for such force under section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The conduct of the police was unlawful and amounted to an assault. The defendant, as employer, is vicariously liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the shooting.

Citation
[2012] ZAGPJHC 212
Parties
Plaintiff: Ngwenya Maphungane Richard; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 October 2012
Case Number
2006/22220
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits and Quantum Separated; Trial on Merits Only
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff on the merits; damages and costs awarded by agreement.
Judges
Whitcutt
Legal Topics
Unlawful Police Conduct, Assault by State Actor, Vicarious Liability, Use of Force in Arrest
Delict Civil Procedure Unlawful Police Conduct Assault by State Actor Vicarious Liability Use of Force in Arrest

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ngwenya Maphungane Richard

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits and Quantum Separated; Trial on Merits Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was unlawfully shot by a member of the South African Police Services.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the police amounted to an unlawful assault.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's evidence was unchallenged and established that he was shot by a police officer while not being a suspect or the object of arrest. The police failed to provide any justification for the use of deadly force, and the circumstances did not meet the statutory requirements for such force under section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The conduct of the police was unlawful and amounted to an assault. The defendant, as employer, is vicariously liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the shooting.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff on the merits; damages and costs awarded by agreement.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for all agreed damages caused by the plaintiff having been shot on 26 October 2003.
  • The defendant will pay to the plaintiff the amount of R150,000.00 as damages, together with interest at 15.5% per annum from 6 October 2006 until date of final payment.