South Africa Case Law

Edwards v Minister of Police (2021/21842)

Edwards v Minister of Police (2021/21842) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1143; 2025 (1) SACR 364 (GJ) (11 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/21842

Judge

L R Adams

The court found the defendants' version more probable than the plaintiff's. The crowd was not peaceful but agitated and violent, refusing to disperse and threatening police and public safety. The SAPS attempted to negotiate and persuade the crowd to leave, but when these efforts failed, they used a stun grenade and fired rubber bullets. The court held that the police were protecting legal interests against a dangerous situation and had no other reasonable means of averting the danger. The force used was not excessive under the circumstances. The requirements for the defence of private defence…

Source excerpt

• Police Liability
• Private Defence
• Necessity
• Minimum Force
• Vicarious Liability

Magagula v Minister of Correctional Services (19938/2015)

Magagula v Minister of Correctional Services (19938/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 799 (16 November 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

19938/2015

Judge

Louw

The court held that correctional officers unlawfully assaulted an inmate with batons, causing a broken arm, and ordered the Minister liable for damages.

• Assault By State Officials
• Vicarious Liability
• Minimum Force
• Correctional Services Act
• Unlawful Conduct
• Assault-by-state-officials

Goelst v MEC Safety And Security and Another (2013/08028)

Goelst v MEC Safety And Security and Another (2013/08028) [2014] ZAGPJHC 131 (10 June 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2013/08028

Judge

Nicholls

A traffic officer lawfully arrested a motorist for driving in the emergency lane and resisting arrest; the court dismissed claims for unlawful arrest and assault.

• Unlawful Arrest
• Assault
• Minimum Force
• Peace Officer Powers
• Traffic Offences
• Unlawful-arrest

Motswana v MEC for Safety and Security (CA&R 147/2005)

Motswana v MEC for Safety and Security (CA&R 147/2005) [2007] ZANCHC 71; 2008 (1) SACR 404 (NC) (28 September 2007)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R 147/2005

Judges

HJ Lacock, LO Bosielo

The court found that the police officer, Van Niekerk, was not justified in using a police dog to apprehend the appellant. Although the appellant resisted arrest and attempted to flee, there were other police officers present who could have assisted in effecting the arrest with less risk of injury. The officer deliberately chose to use the dog, knowing its aggressive nature and the likelihood of serious injury, rather than calling for assistance. The use of the dog was not the least injurious means available and thus failed the test of reasonable necessity and proportionality under section 49(…

Source excerpt

• Use Of Force In Arrest
• Police Dog Attack
• Section 49 Criminal Procedure Act
• Constitutional Rights Dignity
• Onus Of Proof
• Minimum Force