Zonela v Minister of Police (3306/2018) [2020] ZAECMHC 45 (17 September 2020)

Zonela v Minister of Police (3306/2018) [2020] ZAECMHC 45 (17 September 2020)

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was uncontested and credible. He established that he was shot by police officers acting in the course and scope of their employment, and that the shooting was wrongful and unlawful. The defendant failed to rebut the plaintiff's version or present any evidence to the contrary. The court held that the plaintiff discharged the onus of proving vicarious liability and wrongful conduct by the police. The application for absolution from the instance was refused, and the defendant was held liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff, but the engagement of two counsel was deemed a luxury not to be paid for by...

Citation
[2020] ZAECMHC 45
Parties
Plaintiff: Jabulani Sicelo Zonela; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2020
Case Number
3306/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Defendant held liable for damages suffered by plaintiff arising from unlawful shooting; costs awarded to plaintiff; quantum postponed sine die.
Judges
Mafunda
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Unlawful Shooting, Bodily Integrity Infringement, Absolution From the Instance
Delict Civil Procedure Vicarious Liability Unlawful Shooting Bodily Integrity Infringement Absolution From the Instance

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jabulani Sicelo Zonela

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for damages arising from the plaintiff being shot by members of the South African Police Service.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proving wrongful and unlawful conduct by the police.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to withstand absolution from the instance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was uncontested and credible. He established that he was shot by police officers acting in the course and scope of their employment, and that the shooting was wrongful and unlawful. The defendant failed to rebut the plaintiff's version or present any evidence to the contrary. The court held that the plaintiff discharged the onus of proving vicarious liability and wrongful conduct by the police. The application for absolution from the instance was refused, and the defendant was held liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff, but the engagement of two counsel was deemed a luxury not to be paid for by...

Court Disposition

Defendant held liable for damages suffered by plaintiff arising from unlawful shooting; costs awarded to plaintiff; quantum postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The defendant is held liable to the plaintiff for the proved or agreed damages suffered by him arising from injuries sustained as a result of members of the South African Police Service having shot at him at Sutherland Street, Mthatha on 19 November 2016.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff's costs of suit to date.