Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Lehlehla v Minister of Police (A37/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 107 (19 April 2024)
Full bench appeal over a police shooting claim held that pleadings were broad enough to include failure to deploy the POP unit and reversed dismissal.
Bidvest Protea Coin Security (Pty) Ltd v Mabena (A10/2020) [2023] ZAMPMHC 22 (2 June 2023)
The appeal court upheld liability from a shooting during a strike, finding the defence of necessity was not properly pleaded and the trial court’s order stood.
Baloyi v Minister of Police (20987/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 579 (30 March 2022)
The court held that police acted unlawfully when they fired rubber bullets at a fleeing student during the 2015 Fees Must Fall protest, and found the Minister liable.
Vinger v Minister of Safety and Security (33574/11) [2020] ZAGPPHC 714 (23 November 2020)
The High Court held that the defendant failed to justify the shooting of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant liable for 100% of proven or agreed damages.
Phawe and Others v Minister of Police (1403; 1404/2016; 1405/2016) [2019] ZANWHC 51 (28 November 2019)
The court found that the defendant, having admitted the assault, bore the onus to prove its lawfulness. The evidence established that a court order existed requiring striking workers to remain 500 meters from Botshelo Mills, and that the police conveyed this order to union representatives, who were instructed to inform the workers. The police initially used non-lethal methods (stun grenade, teargas) to disperse the crowd, but only resorted to firing rubber bullets after the situation escalated to lawlessness, including road blockages, arson, and attacks on motorists and police. The court acce…
Source excerpt
S v Heugh and Another (CC17/2018) [2018] ZAECPEHC 68 (15 November 2018)
The High Court convicted both accused of kidnapping, robbery with aggravating circumstances, and rape, relying on the complainant’s credible evidence and medical corroboration.
Joe v S (A706/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 738 (16 January 2018)
The High Court dismissed Samuel Diphapang Joe’s appeal against conviction and seven-year sentence for housebreaking and theft, and upheld his firearm disqualification.
Mangadi v De Beer (1426/05) [2013] ZANWHC 39 (28 March 2013)
The High Court held the defendant liable for assault after finding he intentionally struck the plaintiff in a clubhouse dispute and failed to prove necessity or self-defence.
Steyn v S (A480/2011) [2012] ZAWCHC 106 (10 February 2012)
High Court appeal against convictions for crimen injuria, assault and malicious damage to property dismissed. The court also rejected the claim of self-defence.
Maimela and Another v Makhado Municipality and Another (269/10) [2011] ZASCA 69; 2011 (2) SACR 339 (SCA); 2011 (6) SA 533 (SCA) (20 May 2011)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the defence of necessity was correctly upheld by the trial court. Nkuna was subjected to a murderous attack by a hostile crowd while acting within the course and scope of his employment. The evidence established that he fired shots while being assaulted on the ground, with the intention to ward off his attackers and avert imminent death. The court found that it was objectively reasonable for Nkuna to fire his weapon under the circumstances, even though innocent persons were injured or killed. The defence of necessity does not require the action to be dire…
Source excerpt
Explore more
