About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPJHC 152
|
|
Tshuma v Minister of Safety And Security (18147/10) [2015] ZAGPJHC 152 (29 July 2015)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
HIGH COURT
Johannesburg
Local Division
CASE
NO: 18147/10
DATE:
29 JULY 2015
In the matter
between:
Tshuma
Njabulo
...........................................................................................................................
Plaintiff
And
The Minister
of Safety And
Security
.......................................................................................
Defendant
JUDGMENT
1.
The
plaintiff, a Zimbabwean citizen, visited this country for a short
while, from 30 May 2009. He stayed at his cousin’s residence
in
the informal settlement of Diepsloot. At that time he was employed as
a security guard at the Manor Hotel in Zimbabwe. In the
early hours
of the morning of 3 June 2009 he was sleeping at his cousin’s
home (referred to in the pleadings and in the evidence
as a “
shack
”)
when he was rudely disturbed by members of the South African Police
Services (SAPS) and eventually shot, arrested and detained
by them.
It is his claim that he was unlawfully assaulted (by virtue of having
been shot), arrested and detained by these members
of the SAPS.
It is common cause that the members of the SAPS acted in the course
and scope of their employment when assaulting,
arresting and
detaining the plaintiff. As a result of which the plaintiff seeks to
hold the defendant vicariously liable for the
harm he suffered at the
hands of these members of the SAPS.
2.
The
facts surrounding the shooting and arrest of the plaintiff are
controversial – the parties could agree on very little
as to
what transpired, and how it transpired on that morning. This
necessitated entertaining oral evidence so that determinations
could
be made on each of the relevant, but controversial, facts. However,
before analysing this evidence it would be helpful to
list the common
cause facts.
3.
It
is common cause that on the morning of the 3 June 2009 the plaintiff
was peacefully sleeping in a dwelling that consisted of
a single room
and which was built largely with corrugated iron (the door-frame was
made of metal though the door was made of wood).
It was located on a
plot in Diepsloot. There were two dwellings on the plot, a large one
in the front and a small one at the back.
The small one, as mentioned
above, consisted of a single room. It is in this dwelling that the
plaintiff and his niece were sleeping.
It was not a particularly
strong dwelling or one that was reasonably sound-proofed. Sounds
pitched at very low decibels could be
heard both inside and outside
of the dwelling, and so someone sleeping inside could be easily
roused by the slightest noise outside.
The electricity supply to the
dwelling was very basic. The door to the dwelling was a basic wooden
one, but which had a hole drilled
into it. A hole was also drilled in
the corrugated iron that came into contact with the door when it was
closed. The two holes
were used to place a chain through them. The
chain could then be locked with a padlock to prevent unlawful entry
to the dwelling.
The dwelling was on a small plot of land with a
perimeter fence. The perimeter fence was no deterrent to anyone
seeking entry to
the plot of land on which the dwelling was erected.
4.
On
2 June 2009, the plaintiff and his niece had supper just before it
got dark and retired to bed in the dwelling. At about 01h00
on 3 June
2009 a substantial number of SAPS’s employees arrived at the
plot. They had with them searchlights as well as formidable
weapons,
including R5 rifles. They surrounded the dwelling, making it
impossible for the occupants to escape therefrom. One of
them carried
a loudhailer, which he used to inform the occupants that they were
members of the SAPS who had surrounded the dwelling
and who were
there on police business. He called out to the occupants to come out
of the dwelling with their hands in the air.
The plaintiff and his
niece were awoken by the commotion. They were frightened by this
sudden disturbance of their peaceful sleep.
The plaintiff told his
niece to hide under the bed she slept on, while he got out of bed,
took an axe that was on the floor nearby
and knocked it hard against
the corrugated iron to indicate to the persons outside that there
were occupants inside the dwelling.
He unlocked the chain, opened the
door (he says only partially, the SAPS members who testified, say
wholly) to see what was happening
outside, at which point gunshots
were fired at him by members of the SAPS. He immediately retreated
inside and shut the door. His
niece, who was petrified, noticed that
he was bleeding in the leg and informed him that he had been shot. He
shouted that he had
been shot and that he would be coming out.
He also shouted that in order for him to come out those outside
should not shoot
at him. The members of SAPS obliged. He came out and
was immediately placed under arrest. His niece also exited. An
ambulance was
called for, the dwelling was searched, and he was
transported under police guard to the hospital where he was kept
under permanent
police guard. His one leg was shackled to a metal
railing that was part of the bed he was kept on. Each time he needed
to use the
ablutions, the policeman guarding him removed the shackle.
He was never charged for any offence, did not make any appearance in
any court and on 22 June 2009, without warning, the shackle was
removed by the police guard and he was told that he was free to
leave
at his convenience.
5.
The
rest is controversial and can only be determined after having regard
to the
viva
voce
evidence presented by the parties.
The evidence of the defendant
6.
The
defendant called six witnesses to wit, Lieutenant Janse van Vuuren
(Lt van Vuuren); Captain Sholtz (Capt Sholtz), Captain Sharp
(Capt
Sharp), Sergeant Suresh Naidoo (Sergeant Naidoo) and Lieutenant Shai
Paul Jodola (Lt Jodola).
7.
Lt
van Vuuren was the commanding officer of the Crime Intelligence
Services based in Pretoria dealing with tracing of alleged criminals
who were sought by the SAPS. On 2 June 2009 at about 22h00 he was
told, per telephone call, that an informer was able to supply
information about the whereabouts of an alleged criminal who was
sought by them with regard to a number of household and business
robberies in the Diepsloot area. He rounded up his team, consisting
of Capt Scholtz, Capt Sharp, a Warrant Officer Pearse (W O
Pearse)
and a Sergeant Louw (Sgt Louw). Together they went to a petrol
station where they were met and briefed by the informer
and his
handler. The informer told them that the alleged criminal was
residing in a dwelling in the informal settlement of Diepsloot.
The
full address supplied was No 4753 Babiri Street, Extension 5,
Diepsloot (Babiri Street). They were told in no uncertain terms
that
he was presently there. There were a number of other members of SAPS
belonging to “
the
flying squad
”
present at the briefing. Once told that the alleged criminal was at
the dwelling in Babiri Street, Lt van Vuuran decided
that it was
necessary to proceed there. They prepared themselves for a visit to
Babiri Street in order to accost the alleged criminal.
Each of them
was clad in a bullet-proof vest. Each one of them was carrying a
firearm. Some of the firearms in their possession
were semi-automatic
R5 rifles. They took bright torchlights, a loudhailer and a hammer
(which is a heavy piece of metal). The hammer
was to be used to break
down the door. All this equipment was necessary if they were to be
prepared for any and every contemplated
contingency. They had with
them a photograph of the wanted alleged criminal. They did not secure
a warrant for the arrest of the
alleged criminal since it would not
be obtained in time for them to secure his arrest. After midnight
they proceeded to the address
supplied to them by the informer. Lt
van Vuuren’s entire team was with him. Before reaching the
address, they chose to detour
to the Erasmia police station, which
was the police station nearest to the address they were heading to,
where they requested the
station commander to instruct policemen to
accompany them as back-up. Their request was acceded to, though he
cannot recall how
many they were. All he could say is that they were
many. Upon their arrival at the dwelling in Babiri Street, he ordered
all the
police officers to spread out and surround the entire
dwelling so that the occupants would not be able to leave it
undetected.
The dwelling consisted of a single room that was in the
backyard of another dwelling. Both dwellings were made of corrugated
iron.
He instructed Capt Sholtz, Capt Sharp, Sgt Louw and W O Pearse
to proceed ahead of him. As they reached the front door of the
dwelling
they shone the torchlight directly on it. The officer who
had the loudhailer called out to the occupants informing them that
they
were police and instructing them to come out with their hands
held upwards where they would be visible. They heard a loud bang
coming from inside the dwelling. He then heard gunshots and very soon
thereafter saw a man come out of the dwelling. The man was
bleeding.
He instructed his officers to summon an ambulance to the premises.
Together with his men he entered the dwelling and
searched it for
automatic weapons. Apart from an axe lying on the floor they found
nothing of significance. The occupant who was
shot is the plaintiff.
He thought that the plaintiff was the person that was sought by the
police and so the plaintiff was immediately
arrested, even though
there was no warrant for his arrest. As soon as the ambulance arrived
the plaintiff was taken to hospital
under police guard as he was now
under arrest. Later he learnt that the plaintiff was not the alleged
criminal that was being sought
by the police.
8.
Capt
Sholtz testified along the same lines as Lt van Vuuren as to the
events leading up to their arrival at the dwelling. Taking
the baton
from there he said that they were accompanied “
by
not more than twenty (20) policeman
”,
and that they parked a bit away from the dwelling. They had to pass
through a narrow passage way to get to the dwelling.
They got there
on foot. Himself and Sgt Louw went ahead with Capt Sharp providing
back-up for him, and W O Pearse providing back-up
for Sgt Louw. As
they reached the plot they switched on their torches. They got to the
dwelling in the backyard. He saw that there
was an iron-gate
protecting the door but this gate was unlocked. He stood right in
front of it and opened it. He had his firearm
in his hand. Sgt Louw,
who was next to him, knocked on the door frame and announced that
they were police and that the occupants
should come out with their
hands up. In fact, both Sgt Louw and W O Pearse shouted “
It
is the police, come out.
”
They did this for about 20 minutes and got no response. Instead, he
heard the sound of four bangs against the corrugated
iron. The sound
came from inside the dwelling. Soon thereafter, the door of the
dwelling opened inwards and he saw a human figure
emerge. He did not
see the human figure clearly. At that point he felt a jerk against
his bullet-proofed vest and fell backwards
against a wall that was
approximately one metre away from the door. He saw the door closing
with the human figure disappearing
inside. He then heard gunshots
being fired at the door and on the corrugated iron surrounding the
door. He cannot recall how many
gunshots were fired. As he had fallen
against the wall he was only able to regain his balance with the
assistance of Lt van Vuuren
who asked if he was injured to which he
replied: “
No,
I’m fine
”.
He learnt later that Sgt Louw and W O Pearse were the ones that
discharged their firearms. A man came crawling out of the
dwelling
shouting I have been shot. They moved him aside, entered the dwelling
where they found his niece as well as an axe lying
on the floor. They
searched it further and found nothing of note. After seeing the axe,
he realised that he had been hit with it
before the shooting
commenced. He decided to remove the axe from the dwelling and take it
with him to the Erasmia police station
where he booked it in as an
exhibit. He left before the police photographer had arrived on the
scene to take photographs of it.
The axe was never sent to the
forensic department for further analysis. He agreed that he should
not have done so as it was part
of the crime scene. Nevertheless, one
of the photographs taken after he had left shows the axe on the floor
inside the dwelling.
Later that morning, before 09h00 to be exact, he
typed up a statement recording what, according to him, had occurred
early that
morning. The relevant portions of the statement reads:
“
I
went to the door with Sergeant Louw and my back up was Captain Sharp
and Sergeant Louw’s back up was Inspector Pearse. The
door had
a safety gate and it was not locked and I opened it to the right
slowly in order not to make known our presence until
we were ready to
operate. Then Sergeant Louw knocked on the iron door and announced
that we are from the police and that the person
inside must open the
door and then to come out of the house with their hands raised above
their heads. I then heard four (4) loud
bangs that sounded like
gunfire from inside the house and then the door opened from the
inside and there was man in the doorway
with an axe in his right hand
raised above his head ready to strike and I saw that he was striking
at me and I fell back against
the wall of the house which was behind
me and withdrew to my left and rolled my shoulders to my left and
just felt the blow going
over me and felt something jerk at my jacket
on the right hand side.
I heard gunfire from my left
where Captain Sharp was standing with Inspector Pearse and they were
in direct support of me and Sergeant
Louw. I moved away from the door
and took cover.
Sergeant Louw thereafter
instructed the man to come out of the house but there was no reply
from the house. Sergeant Louw persisted
for approximately 25 min to
shout at the people inside the house that we are from the Police and
that the house is surrounded and
that they must come our with their
hands raised and that there is no where to go.
After
the person came out of the house I arrested the suspect known as
Njabulo Tshuma with date of birth 1979-05-02 and detained
him at
Erasmia SAPS: Erasmia CAS 34/06/2009 refers Attempted Murder. An axe,
found inside the doorway, which I booked in as an
exhibit Erasmia SAP
13/331/2009 refers, and SAP 14/15/06/2009 and OB entry 169/06/2009.
The suspect had injuries on his leg and
was transported to Kalafong
hospital.
”
[1]
9.
During
cross-examination he was unable to explain why, if he had taken the
axe with him before the photographer had arrived on the
scene, was it
still in the dwelling after he left. He also could not explain why,
if he was so close to the door with a torch-light
focussed on the
door, was he not able to see it opening and clearly see a man
emerging with an axe in his hand.
10.
Capt
Sharp’s testimony was presented to shed greater light on the
actual shooting of the plaintiff. He stated that he saw
the door of
the dwelling opening and someone emerging therefrom and attacking
Capt Sholtz. This happened very quickly. Instantaneously,
he
discharged his firearm, which was an R5 Rifle, and which was pointed
at the person who came out of the dwelling. He cannot recall
how many
shots he fired. Captain Pearse also discharged his firearm and did so
at exactly the same time as himself. Once the shooting
commenced, the
person retreated into the dwelling. They searched the dwelling, found
a young lady inside and the axe lying on the
floor. Capt Sholtz took
the axe and booked it in at Erasmia police station. Later that
morning he typed up a statement of his account
of the incident and
deposed to it at 09h00. The font used by him is exactly the same as
that used by Capt Sholtz. The statement
of Capt Sholtz and his
statement contain numerous sentences that are identical in terms.
11.
Sgt
Naidoo, who is, amongst others, a photographer with the SAPS,
testified that he was summoned to the scene of the shooting at
about
01h15 on the morning of 3 June 2009. He arrived there at 02h20.
Another policeman there told him that a suspect, who had
a firearm in
his possession, was shot by the police. He was instructed to take
photographs of the scene. He did not take detailed
photographs of the
door to the dwelling as his attention was not directed to it. He
found the axe lying on the floor and was told
to photograph it. He
took photographs of a number of R5 cartridges lying on the floor.
After taking photographs of the scene he
left.
12.
Lt
Jodola was tasked to investigate the charge laid against the
plaintiff by Capt Sharp. He was only allocated this task on 9 June
2009. On 4 June 2009, i.e. one day after the incident and the arrest,
another officer had been given this task. That officer collected
statements from witnesses to the incident, including the plaintiff
and his niece. On 9 June 2009, upon receiving the docket containing
these statements, he immediately proceeded to the magistrates court
to have the matter placed on the court roll. He was unsuccessful
as
the prosecutor controlling the roll refused to accede to his request
because the arrest of the plaintiff had taken place more
that
forty-eight (48) hours before the 9
th
June 2009. He immediately proceeded to the charge office at Erasmia
police station and informed the policemen there (he cannot
recall
their names or ranks) that he was tasked to investigate the charge
against the plaintiff, but that since the prosecutor
at the
magistrates court refused to place the matter on the court roll, they
should ensure that the plaintiff was no longer detained.
He was under
the impression that they would immediately release the plaintiff as
they were the ones that had detained him at the
Kalafong Hospital. He
was surprised to learn that the plaintiff was only released on 22
June 2009. As far as he was concerned there
was no case for the
plaintiff to answer. However, he could not enlighten the court as to
whether it was necessary to arrest the
plaintiff or not.
The plaintiff’s evidence
13.
The
plaintiff, a Zimbabwean citizen, testified that he travelled to and
arrived in Johannesburg on 30 May 2009 in order to attend
a job
interview. He spent the night at his cousin’s dwelling, which
consists of a single room (a “shack” in his
words) in
Diepsloot. He lived there from 30 May to 3 June 2009 when he was shot
by the police and hospitalised. On the evening
of 2 June 2009 he was
with his niece, a Ms Olitha Ncube (Ms Ncube), at the dwelling. He
chopped wood for a fire which he prepared
in order to keep them warm,
had a meal with his niece, and after a while they both retired to
bed. At approximately 01h00 on 3
June 2009 he and his niece were
awakened by the sound of loud noises coming from outside the
dwelling. He heard voices of men.
The voices came from right outside
the door of the dwelling they were sleeping in. His niece was very
frightened as was he, but
he tried to keep calm and told her to get
under the bed in order to protect herself. They both thought that the
persons whose voices
they heard were robbers. He took hold of an axe
that was lying on the floor and knocked it several times against the
corrugated
iron in order to arouse the persons sleeping in the main
dwelling. He was standing near the door. Immediately thereafter he
heard
the sound of gunshots and before he could react he was shot in
the leg. He heard the people outside shout: “
Police.
Jackie come out, the place is surrounded.
”
He replied that he was not Jackie, that he was shot and that he
intended to come out. His niece opened the door and ran
back to hide
under the bed, while he slowly crawled out of the dwelling.
Thereafter he was arrested and taken to hospital. The
rest of his
evidence is captured in the common cause facts identified above.
[2]
14.
The
plaintiff’s niece, Ms Ncube, testified under strain of great
emotion. From the commencement of her testimony she indicated
that
the incident was extremely traumatising for her and that she still
had great difficulty coming to terms with it. Despite this
she gave a
clear account of what occurred. She corroborated the plaintiff’s
evidence that they were awakened by loud noises
coming from outside
the dwelling; that she was absolutely petrified; that she thought
that they were on the verge of being accosted
by robbers; that the
plaintiff told her to take cover by hiding under the bed that she was
sleeping on; that the plaintiff knocked
against the side of the
dwelling with the axe in the hope of arousing the occupants of the
main dwelling and that the plaintiff
was shot in the leg while still
inside the dwelling.
The
probabilities of the two versions
15.
The
two versions are diametrically opposed to each other. There is no way
that they can be reconciled: only one of the two versions
can be a
correct and a true reflection of the facts. In a matter such as this
it is necessary to have regard to the credibility
of each of the
witnesses, their reliability and the probabilities of each of the
versions being true, taking into account all the
facts. This
principle, trite as it may be, has been elaborated upon in the
following terms:
“
On
the central issue, as to what parties actually decided, there are two
irreconcilable versions. So, too, on a number of peripheral
areas of
dispute which may have a bearing on the probabilities. The technique
generally employed by courts in resolving factual
disputes of this
nature may conveniently be summarised as follows. To come to a
conclusion on the disputed issues a court must
make findings on (a)
the credibility of the various factual witnesses; (b) their
reliability; and (c) the probabilities. As to
(a), the court’s
finding on the credibility of a particular witness will depend on its
impression about the veracity of the
witness. That in turn will
depend on a variety of subsidiary factors, not necessarily in order
of importance, such as (i) the witness’
candour and demeanour
in the witness-box, (ii) his bias, latent and blatant, (iii) internal
contradictions in his evidence, (iv)
external contradictions with
what was pleaded or put on his behalf, or with established fact or
with his own extracurial statements
or actions,(v) the probability or
improbability of particular aspects of his version, (vi) the calibre
and cogency of his performance
compared to that of other witnesses
testifying about the same incident or events. As to (b), a witness’
reliability will
depend, apart from the factors mentioned under
(a)(ii),(iv) and (v) above, on (i) the opportunities he had to
experience or observe
the event in question and (ii) the quality,
integrity and independence of his recall thereof. As to (c), this
necessitates an analysis
and evaluation of the probability or
improbability of each party’s version on each of the disputed
issues. In the light of
its assessment of (a), (b) and (c) the court
will then, as a final step, determine whether the party burdened with
the onus of
proof has succeeded in discharging it. The hard case,
which will doubtless be the rare one, occurs when a court’s
credibility
findings compel it in one direction and its evaluation of
the general probabilities in another. The more convincing the former,
the less convincing will be the latter. But when all factors are
equipoised probabilities will prevail.
[3]
16.
There
are a number of problems with Capt Sholtz’s testimony. Firstly,
his account that whilst he was right in front of the
door with a
torchlight focussed on it, he could not see a human being, but only
see what appeared to be a human figure, coming
out of the door which
opened slowly towards the inside. The human being was no more than an
arm’s-length away from him. He,
on the other hand, just stood
there with his firearm pointing at the door doing nothing and saying
nothing while this human being
swung an axe at him. This version does
not fit easily with a basic common sense understanding of human
interaction. No person caught
in the same circumstances as he was on
that morning could have avoided seeing a human being emerging from a
door that was opening
inwards, and no reasonable person would have
failed to react instantaneously, especially since he would have been,
as Capt Sholtz
was, fully prepared for a confrontation. The next
problem is that according to him he took the axe with him before the
photographer
came, yet the axe is seen in a photograph taken after he
supposedly left. The third problem is that according to his statement
written a few hours after the incident he “
detained
him at Erasmia SAPS
”.
Yet is it common cause that the plaintiff was never taken to the
Erasmia police station. He was taken directly to the Kalafong
Hospital where he was detained while receiving treatment for the
gunshot wound.
17.
The
testimony of Capt Sharp, too, raises an important issue that was not
satisfactorily dealt with by the defendant: Capt Sharp
was not able
to explain how it was that he was only able to note the emergence of
the person from the dwelling after the person
had already attacked
Capt Scholtz. He was, after all, specifically tasked with providing
back-up for Capt Scholtz, and as such
was on full alert when Capt
Sholtz proceeded no more than a pace or two ahead of him.
18.
Further,
it bears mentioning that the statements made by Capt Sholtz and Capt
Sharp at exactly the same time (09h00 on 3 June 2009)
were so similar
that the inference that there was collusion on their part in
documenting their experiences is too strong to be
ignored. The
ineluctable conclusion to be drawn from this is that when drafting
the respective statements they co-operated with
each other to such an
extent that neither of their accounts can be accepted as being a
self-standing and independent record of
the incident.
19.
On
the whole, the version of the defendant as to what happened in the
early hours of the morning of 3 June 2009 is tainted by internal
contradictions (such as the axe being removed from the scene before
the photographer arrived on the scene when, in fact, it was
photographed at the scene), and is not credible (such as none of the
policeman who were facing the door of the dwelling saw the
plaintiff
emerge from the dwelling until he had struck Capt Sholtz, and that
even though they discharged their firearms as soon
as they saw him
strike Capt Sholtz, he was able to disappear into the dwelling
without being fatally shot. In this regard it has
to be borne in mind
that they discharged the R5 rifle which is a deadly weapon). The
police, it must be remembered, were large
in number, were well armed
and had surrounded the dwelling before actually announcing their
presence. In fact, the success of their
mission depended on them
maintaining the element of surprise and, for this reason, they were
extra careful in moving swiftly and
silently before they pounced at
the door of the dwelling. In these circumstances, for the defendant’s
witnesses to claim
that they were taken by surprise when the
plaintiff, who was allegedly armed with nothing more than an axe,
came out of the dwelling
and attacked one of them before they
discharged their lethal weapons does not make sense. The defendant’s
witnesses, Lt van
Vuuren, Capt Sholtz and Capt Sharp believed that
the occupant(s) of the dwelling was armed with lethal firearms and
were expecting
him/them to use these when they confronted the
occupant(s). They were, therefore, not only aware of, but prepared
for, a possible
violent confrontation, so much so that, they came
very well prepared for such a confrontation. On these facts, it has
to be concluded
that the defendant’s version is simply not
probable.
20.
The
plaintiff’s version, on the other hand, makes a great deal more
sense. The plaintiff and his niece were asleep when the
police
struck. They were rudely awakened by the police loudly announcing
their presence. They were, naturally, shaken by this and
frightened
out of their wits. Hence, the plaintiff using the axe to knock on the
iron sheeting that walls the dwelling in order
to call for help is a
perfectly reasonable response.
Costs
21.
The
plaintiff has succeeded in proving that he was unlawfully arrested,
assaulted and detained by members of the SAPS. However,
the damages
he has suffered as a result thereof have yet to be determined. This,
by agreement between the parties and by subsequent
order of this
court has been reserved for another day. As a result it is not clear
what damages the plaintiff will ultimately prove.
It may well be that
the damages he proves constitutes an amount that falls within the
jurisdiction of the magistrates court, in
which case he would only be
entitled to recover his costs on a magistrates court scale. As this
is a matter that can only be determined
after the completion of the
second stage of this case, I am of the view that the costs of the
hearing thus far also be held over
and be determined as part of the
hearing on the second stage.
The order
1
The
assault (by way of shooting) of the plaintiff on 3 June 2009, the
arrest of the plaintiff on 3 June 2009 and the detention of
the
plaintiff from 3 June 2009 to 22 June 2009 by members of the South
African Police Services is declared to be unlawful.
2
The
matter is postponed
sine
die
for determination of the plaintiff’s damages arising from his
unlawful assault, arrest and detention.
3
The
costs of the application are held over to be determined at the
hearing concerning the quantum of the damages suffered by the
plaintiff as a result of the unlawful conduct referred to in
paragraph 1 of this order.
Vally
J
Gauteng
High Court, Johannesburg Local Division
Appearances:
For
the plaintiff : Attorney B L Mzamo
For
the respondents : Adv N Sikhakhane
Instructed
by : State Attorney
Dates of hearing :
04
th
– 13
th
February 2015
Date of
judgment : 29
th
July 2015
[1]
Bundle,
pp 72-73. The statement is quoted verbatim. It was deposed to before
a commissioner of oaths.
[2]
See
paras 3 and 4
[3]
Stellenbodsch
Farmers Winery Group Limited & Another v Martell et CIE &
Others
2003 (1) SA (SCA) 11 at paragraph 5.