Resinga v Minister of Police (6878/2017) [2024] ZALMPPHC 131 (23 August 2024)

Resinga v Minister of Police (6878/2017) [2024] ZALMPPHC 131 (23 August 2024)

The court found that the Defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the shooting of the Plaintiff was justified. The Plaintiff and his witness provided consistent, credible, and corroborated evidence that neither the Plaintiff nor his companion threatened anyone or provoked the SAPS members. The SAPS members arrived in an unmarked vehicle, did not identify themselves, and immediately opened fire without warning. The Defendant's witnesses, particularly Mr. Tsenane, were inconsistent and contradicted themselves on material aspects. The court found it improbable that the Plaintiff, an off-duty police officer, would have fired at SAPS members without provocation, especially as he...

Citation
[2024] ZALMPPHC 131
Parties
Plaintiff: Madyisa Conference Resinga; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2024
Case Number
6878/2017
Procedural Posture
Delictual Action / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim succeeds. Defendant held 100% liable for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of being shot and assaulted by SAPS members.
Judges
Naude-Odendaal
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Unlawful Assault, Negligence, Self Defence, Onus of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Vicarious Liability Unlawful Assault Negligence Self Defence Onus of Proof

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

Parties

Madyisa Conference Resinga

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delictual Action / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant is vicariously liable for the shooting and assault of the Plaintiff by SAPS members.
  2. 2 Whether the shooting of the Plaintiff was justified as private defence.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant discharged the onus to prove justification for the shooting.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the shooting of the Plaintiff was justified. The Plaintiff and his witness provided consistent, credible, and corroborated evidence that neither the Plaintiff nor his companion threatened anyone or provoked the SAPS members. The SAPS members arrived in an unmarked vehicle, did not identify themselves, and immediately opened fire without warning. The Defendant's witnesses, particularly Mr. Tsenane, were inconsistent and contradicted themselves on material aspects. The court found it improbable that the Plaintiff, an off-duty police officer, would have fired at SAPS members without provocation, especially as he...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim succeeds. Defendant held 100% liable for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of being shot and assaulted by SAPS members.

Orders

  • The Defendant is held 100% liable for the damages that the Plaintiff might be able to prove, suffered in consequence of him being shot and assaulted by members of the Defendant.
  • The Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs.