A December 2024 case involves a claim for damages by the plaintiff, who was shot by a police officer, against the Minister of Police (“defendant”). The claim arose from an incident on 10 January 2019, where the plaintiff was shot in the back by the police officer while allegedly fleeing from the police. The plaintiff contended that the shooting was unlawful and sought compensation for the injuries sustained.
On 10 January 2019, the plaintiff was at Botshabelo when he encountered his former girlfriend and her father. Following a confrontation with the father, the plaintiff fled the scene, fearing for his safety. During his flight, he was pursued by the police officer, who was on duty and in uniform. The plaintiff claimed that while running away, he heard two gunshots and was subsequently struck in the back by a bullet. He was apprehended by the police officer, who allegedly kicked him and tied his hands with shoelaces before transporting him to the hospital.
The defendant argued that the police officer acted in self-defence, claiming that the plaintiff had attempted to attack him with a bottle. The defendant’s version was that the police officer fired a warning shot into the air and a second shot into the ground, which inadvertently struck the plaintiff.
The primary issue in this case was whether the shooting of the plaintiff by the police officer was lawful and justified. The court had to determine if the actions of the police officer constituted self-defence and whether the force used was necessary and proportionate to the threat posed by the plaintiff.
The court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the testimonies of the plaintiff, the police officer, and another police officer. The court found several inconsistencies and contradictions in the defendant’s version of events. Notably, the court questioned how a bullet fired into the ground could have struck the plaintiff in the back if he was facing the police officer at the time.
The court also considered the credibility of the witnesses. The plaintiff’s account of the events was found to be more consistent and plausible compared to the conflicting testimonies of the police officers. The court noted that the defendant failed to provide a convincing explanation for the trajectory of the bullet that struck the plaintiff.
The court held that the defendant was liable for 100% of the damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the shooting incident. The court found that the actions of the police officer were not justified and that the use of force was excessive and unlawful.
This case highlights the importance of accountability and the use of proportional force by law enforcement officers. The court’s decision underscores that police officers must act within the bounds of the law and that excessive use of force will lead to liability. The ruling also emphasises the need for thorough and consistent evidence when justifying the actions of law enforcement personnel.
Matebesi v Minister of Police (1313/2020) [2024] ZAFSHC 405 (13 December 2024)