Thanjekwayo v Minister of Police (72700/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 231 (26 January 2018)

Thanjekwayo v Minister of Police (72700/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 231 (26 January 2018)

The court found that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the shooting of the plaintiff was justified. The evidence of the police officers was contradictory and unreliable, particularly regarding the number of shots fired, the circumstances of the alleged attack, and the actions of the plaintiff. The court noted inconsistencies in the police officers' testimonies and statements, as well as the lack of credible explanation for the arrest of only three individuals days after the incident, despite the alleged presence of a violent crowd. The plaintiff's version was found to be more probable, and the defendant was held liable for the damages caused by the shooting.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 231
Parties
Plaintiff: Simangaliso Lucky Thanjekwayo; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 January 2018
Case Number
72700/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
Defendant held liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages arising from the shooting incident.
Judges
S S Mphahlele
Legal Topics
Police Liability, Self Defence, Onus of Proof, Damages for Shooting
Delict Police Liability Self Defence Onus of Proof Damages for Shooting

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simangaliso Lucky Thanjekwayo

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the shooting of the plaintiff by a police officer was justified in law.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant discharged the onus to prove self-defence.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is liable for damages arising from the shooting incident.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the shooting of the plaintiff was justified. The evidence of the police officers was contradictory and unreliable, particularly regarding the number of shots fired, the circumstances of the alleged attack, and the actions of the plaintiff. The court noted inconsistencies in the police officers' testimonies and statements, as well as the lack of credible explanation for the arrest of only three individuals days after the incident, despite the alleged presence of a violent crowd. The plaintiff's version was found to be more probable, and the defendant was held liable for the damages caused by the shooting.

Court Disposition

Defendant held liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages arising from the shooting incident.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable to pay 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages caused by the shooting incident that took place on 06 June 2014.
  • The defendant is to pay the costs.