South Africa Case Law

Monareng v Minister of Police (2081/2020)

Monareng v Minister of Police (2081/2020) [2025] ZAFSHC 229 (5 August 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2081/2020

Judge

Opperman

The court found that the SAPS Special Task Force members acted lawfully and within the bounds of section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The operation was based on credible intelligence regarding dangerous suspects involved in violent crimes. The SAPS members were properly briefed, used marked vehicles and a helicopter, and attempted a box-in manoeuvre to effect arrest. The plaintiff's vehicle fled, and shots were fired at the police from the suspect vehicle. Forensic evidence linked the plaintiff to the firearm found in the vehicle, which had an erased serial number and was unlicensed. The…

Source excerpt

• Use Of Force In Arrest
• Section 49 Criminal Procedure Act
• Vicarious Liability
• Damages For Police Shooting
• Onus Of Proof
• Proportionality Of Force

Mdluli v MEC for the Safety and Security and Others (5006/17P)

Mdluli v MEC for the Safety and Security and Others (5006/17P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 126 (18 October 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

5006/17P

Judge

Chithi

High Court found the plaintiff’s arrest, detention, and prosecution lawful, but held the police liable for assault and awarded costs on scale B.

• Unlawful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention
• Assault By Police
• Malicious Prosecution
• Vicarious Liability
• Use Of Force In Arrest

Ramasike v Minister of Police (22482/12)

Ramasike v Minister of Police (22482/12) [2024] ZAGPJHC 991 (26 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

22482/12

Judge

Mahosi

The court found that the Minister failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the police officer's use of deadly force was justified under section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The evidence did not support the Minister's version that the plaintiff posed a threat of serious violence, was armed, or had committed a violent crime. The police were unaware the vehicle was stolen at the time of pursuit, and no stolen goods or firearms were found. The officer did not fire a warning shot before shooting the plaintiff, and there was no evidence that less forceful means of arrest were unava…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Assault
• Use Of Force In Arrest
• Section 49 Criminal Procedure Act
• Vicarious Liability
• Negligence
• Constitutional Rights

Webber v Minister of Police (12612/2019)

Webber v Minister of Police (12612/2019) [2024] ZAWCHC 277 (25 September 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

12612/2019

Judge

A Montzinger

The High Court refused condonation for late statutory notice under the Organs of State Act, finding the delay inadequately explained and the delict claim weak.

• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State Act
• Condonation
• Statutory Notice Requirement
• Prescription
• Negligence
• Use Of Force In Arrest

Masimula v Minister of Police

Masimula v Minister of Police [2023] ZAGPPHC 518; 23025/2015 (5 July 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

23025/2015

Judge

Oosthuizen-Senekal

The High Court held that the arrest, detention and shooting of the plaintiff were lawful, finding reasonable suspicion of theft and justified force under section 49(2).

• Unlawful Arrest
• Detention
• Use Of Force In Arrest
• Vicarious Liability
• Section 40 Criminal Procedure Act
• Section 49 Criminal Procedure Act

Phakula v Minister of Safety and Security

Phakula v Minister of Safety and Security [2023] ZAGPPHC 277; 64450/2011 (6 April 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

64450/2011

Judge

WJ du Plessis

The court found the police officers' evidence credible and consistent, while the plaintiff's version was improbable and contradicted by the facts. The plaintiff was part of a group of robbers who broke into the house, and was shot while fleeing after a shootout. The police had reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff of a Schedule 1 offence, justifying arrest without a warrant under section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The use of force by De Klerk was reasonably necessary and proportional under section 49(2), given the dangerous circumstances and the plaintiff's attempt to escap…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Arrest
• Use Of Force In Arrest
• Section 49 Criminal Procedure Act
• Damages For Police Action
• Unlawful Detention

Nkosi and Another v Minister of Police and Another (A10/2021)

Nkosi and Another v Minister of Police and Another (A10/2021) [2021] ZAMPMHC 33 (24 November 2021)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

A10/2021

Judges

J Mtimunye, M.T Mankge, S.S Mphahlele

The High Court dismissed an appeal against findings that police were justified in shooting one appellant during arrest, lawfully arrested the other, and could withdraw a pre-trial assault admission.

• Unlawful Arrest
• Use Of Force In Arrest
• Judicial Admission
• Assault By Police
• Onus Of Proof
• Damages For Assault

Phakula v Minister of Safety and Security (454/19)

Phakula v Minister of Safety and Security (454/19) [2020] ZASCA 109 (23 September 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

454/19

Judges

Petse, Mocumie, Dlodlo, Eksteen, Poyo-Dlwati

The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside a high court judgment after finding that shooting, arrest, assault, and detention claims were inextricably linked and needed a full retrial.

• Unlawful Arrest
• Use Of Force In Arrest
• Vicarious Liability
• Separation Of Issues
• Damages For Assault
• Unlawful-arrest

Jobe and Others v Minister of Police (2228/2016)

Jobe and Others v Minister of Police (2228/2016) [2020] ZANCHC 50 (24 July 2020)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2228/2016

Judge

Phatshoane

The court found that the police discharged the onus to justify the arrests under section 40(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the plaintiffs were identified as active participants in violent protest actions, including public violence and contraventions of road traffic legislation. The plaintiffs' evidence was inconsistent, unreliable, and in several cases, absent, as many did not testify to rebut the police's prima facie case. The twelfth plaintiff's arrest under warrant was found lawful, as credible evidence established the warrant's existence and execution, despite its loss. The subse…

Source excerpt

• Wrongful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention
• Public Violence
• Use Of Force In Arrest
• Constitutional Rights
• Assault Claim

Lukhele v Ethekwini Municipality (3868/2014; 3869/2014; 3870/2014)

Lukhele v Ethekwini Municipality (3868/2014; 3869/2014; 3870/2014) [2020] ZAKZDHC 7 (4 March 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

3868/2014; 3869/2014; 3870/2014

Judge

Chetty

The High Court found the municipal police unlawfully arrested, assaulted and detained three men in Chatsworth, awarding damages against eThekwini Municipality.

• Unlawful Arrest
• Assault By Police
• Damages For Unlawful Detention
• Burden Of Proof
• Use Of Force In Arrest
• Unlawful-arrest