Vinger v Minister of Safety and Security (33574/11) [2020] ZAGPPHC 714 (23 November 2020)

Vinger v Minister of Safety and Security (33574/11) [2020] ZAGPPHC 714 (23 November 2020)

The court found that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving justification for the shooting, either on the basis of self-defence or necessity. The evidence presented by the defendant was rejected as contrived and inconsistent with the proven facts, particularly regarding the position and conduct of the plaintiff at the time of the shooting. The plaintiff's evidence was accepted as credible and consistent with the circumstances. The defendant did not plead or prove the necessary material facts to sustain a defence of necessity. Consequently, the shooting was found to be unlawful, and the defendant was held liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 714
Parties
Plaintiff: Mdanese Ernest Vinger; Defendant: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 November 2020
Case Number
33574/11
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff; defendant held liable for 100% of proven or agreed damages.
Judges
MH Mabena
Legal Topics
Unlawful Shooting, Onus of Proof, Self Defence, Defence of Necessity, Damages Assessment
Delict Civil Procedure Unlawful Shooting Onus of Proof Self Defence Defence of Necessity Damages Assessment

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mdanese Ernest Vinger

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety and Security

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the shooting of the plaintiff by a member of the defendant was unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant discharged the onus to prove justification for the shooting, either on grounds of self-defence or necessity.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the injuries sustained.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving justification for the shooting, either on the basis of self-defence or necessity. The evidence presented by the defendant was rejected as contrived and inconsistent with the proven facts, particularly regarding the position and conduct of the plaintiff at the time of the shooting. The plaintiff's evidence was accepted as credible and consistent with the circumstances. The defendant did not plead or prove the necessary material facts to sustain a defence of necessity. Consequently, the shooting was found to be unlawful, and the defendant was held liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff; defendant held liable for 100% of proven or agreed damages.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant.
  • The Defendant is ordered to pay 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.