Ramasike v Minister of Police (22482/12) [2024] ZAGPJHC 991 (26 September 2024)

Ramasike v Minister of Police (22482/12) [2024] ZAGPJHC 991 (26 September 2024)

The court found that the Minister failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the police officer's use of deadly force was justified under section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The evidence did not support the Minister's version that the plaintiff posed a threat of serious violence, was armed, or had committed a violent crime. The police were unaware the vehicle was stolen at the time of pursuit, and no stolen goods or firearms were found. The officer did not fire a warning shot before shooting the plaintiff, and there was no evidence that less forceful means of arrest were unavailable. The court found the police officer's conduct negligent, as a reasonable officer would have...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 991
Parties
Plaintiff: Ramasike Beverly; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 September 2024
Case Number
22482/12
Procedural Posture
Delictual Action / Trial Judgment
Outcome
The defendant is held liable for all damages suffered by the plaintiff arising from the shooting incident on 14 December 2009.
Judges
Mahosi
Legal Topics
Unlawful Assault, Use of Force in Arrest, Section 49 Criminal Procedure Act, Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Constitutional Rights
Delict Criminal Law Unlawful Assault Use of Force in Arrest Section 49 Criminal Procedure Act Vicarious Liability Negligence Constitutional Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramasike Beverly

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delictual Action / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the shooting of the plaintiff by a police officer during an attempted arrest was lawful and justified under section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Minister of Police is vicariously liable for the negligent conduct of the police officer.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff contributed to his own injuries through his conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Minister failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the police officer's use of deadly force was justified under section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The evidence did not support the Minister's version that the plaintiff posed a threat of serious violence, was armed, or had committed a violent crime. The police were unaware the vehicle was stolen at the time of pursuit, and no stolen goods or firearms were found. The officer did not fire a warning shot before shooting the plaintiff, and there was no evidence that less forceful means of arrest were unavailable. The court found the police officer's conduct negligent, as a reasonable officer would have...

Court Disposition

The defendant is held liable for all damages suffered by the plaintiff arising from the shooting incident on 14 December 2009.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable to pay all such plaintiff’s damages as he may establish in due course arising out of the incident that occurred on 14 December 2009.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of this action on party and party scale B, including the costs of the ballistic expert.