Pretorius v Minister of Police (27250/2018) [2022] ZANCHC 62 (30 September 2022)

Pretorius v Minister of Police (27250/2018) [2022] ZANCHC 62 (30 September 2022)

The court found that the plaintiff was shot in the eye by a rubber bullet fired by police during a service delivery protest in a residential area. The evidence of the plaintiff, corroborated by witnesses and medical testimony, established the injury and its cause. The police failed to comply with operational policies, did not maintain proper records, and did not produce evidence-based video footage or call key witnesses. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the police action was lawful, justified by necessity, or that the plaintiff contributed to his own injury or voluntarily assumed the risk. The court rejected the defences of necessity, self-defence, contributory...

Citation
[2022] ZANCHC 62
Parties
Plaintiff: Herry Pretorius; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2022
Case Number
27250/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Phase; Quantum Separated
Outcome
Defendant is liable for 100% of plaintiff's proven damages.
Judges
Mamosebo
Legal Topics
State Liability Act, Police Misconduct, Rubber Bullet Injury, Contributory Negligence, Necessity Defence, Volenti Non Fit Injuria
Delict Civil Procedure State Liability Act Police Misconduct Rubber Bullet Injury Contributory Negligence Necessity Defence Volenti Non Fit Injuria

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

Parties

Herry Pretorius

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Phase; Quantum Separated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister of Police is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of being shot in the eye with a rubber bullet during a service delivery protest.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the police was wrongful and negligent.
  3. 3 Whether the defences of necessity, self-defence, contributory negligence, or voluntary assumption of risk apply.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was shot in the eye by a rubber bullet fired by police during a service delivery protest in a residential area. The evidence of the plaintiff, corroborated by witnesses and medical testimony, established the injury and its cause. The police failed to comply with operational policies, did not maintain proper records, and did not produce evidence-based video footage or call key witnesses. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the police action was lawful, justified by necessity, or that the plaintiff contributed to his own injury or voluntarily assumed the risk. The court rejected the defences of necessity, self-defence, contributory...

Court Disposition

Defendant is liable for 100% of plaintiff's proven damages.

Orders

  • Defendant is liable to pay 100% of plaintiff's proven damages.
  • Defendant shall pay the agreed or taxed party and party costs of plaintiff.