Rabothata v Minister of Police (56775/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 511; 2021 (2) SACR 544 (GP) (12 August 2021)

Rabothata v Minister of Police (56775/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 511; 2021 (2) SACR 544 (GP) (12 August 2021)

The court found the plaintiff's version, corroborated by multiple witnesses, to be more probable than the defendant's. The evidence established that the plaintiff was not involved in the hijacking, did not possess a firearm, and was wrongly identified and shot by the police officer. The officer failed to properly ascertain the plaintiff's identity and acted negligently in using deadly force without reasonable grounds. The defence's version was rejected as improbable, particularly the claim that the plaintiff threatened the officer with a firearm and that the accomplice retrieved the weapon. The absence of any formal arrest or prosecution further undermined the defence. The court held that...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 511
Parties
Plaintiff: Kagiso Octavius Rabothata; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 August 2021
Case Number
56775/19
Procedural Posture
Delictual Claim / Merits Trial; Quantum Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
The defendant is vicariously liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.
Judges
Khumalo AJ
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Unlawful Police Conduct, Use of Deadly Force, Section 49 Criminal Procedure Act
Delict Civil Procedure Vicarious Liability Negligence Unlawful Police Conduct Use of Deadly Force Section 49 Criminal Procedure Act

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

Parties

Kagiso Octavius Rabothata

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delictual Claim / Merits Trial; Quantum Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police officer was negligent or acted unlawfully in shooting the plaintiff during an attempted arrest.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the use of deadly force was justified under section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff's version, corroborated by multiple witnesses, to be more probable than the defendant's. The evidence established that the plaintiff was not involved in the hijacking, did not possess a firearm, and was wrongly identified and shot by the police officer. The officer failed to properly ascertain the plaintiff's identity and acted negligently in using deadly force without reasonable grounds. The defence's version was rejected as improbable, particularly the claim that the plaintiff threatened the officer with a firearm and that the accomplice retrieved the weapon. The absence of any formal arrest or prosecution further undermined the defence. The court held that...

Court Disposition

The defendant is vicariously liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant is vicariously liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.
  • The defendant is liable to pay the damages that the plaintiff may be able to prove.