About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZAECPEHC 38
|
|
Hart and Others v Masakhane Security (Pty) Ltd (317/08, 318/08) [2009] ZAECPEHC 38 (20 August 2009)
FORM A
FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE,
PORT ELIZABETH
PARTIES
:
R C HART + 3 v MASAKHANE SECUIRTY (PTY) LTD
NOT
REPORTABLE
Case
Number:
317/08
& 318/08
High
Court:
PORT
ELIZABETH
DATE
HEARD:
3,
4 & 5 AUGUST 2009
DATE
DELIVERED:
20
AUGUST 2009
JUDGE(S):
EKSTEEN
AJ
LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES â
Appearances:
for
the Plaintiff(s):
ADV
P MOUTON
for
the Defendant(s):
ADV
BEYLEVELD
Instructing
attorneys:
Plaintiff(s):
VAN
VOLLENHOVEN & ASSOCIATES
Defendant(s):
Mc
WILLIAMS & ELLIOT
CASE
INFORMATION -
Nature
of proceedings
:
Key
Words
:
Summary:
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
NOT
REPORTABLE
EASTERN
CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH
Case No. 317/08
318/08
Date
delivered: 20 August 2009
In
the matter between:
RONALD
CHRISTOPHER HART
First
Plaintiff
JAN
STALMEESTER
Second
Plaintiff
THEMBELANE
ASHELY MOSS
Third
Plaintiff
PUMPLANI
BLOUW
Fourth
Plaintiff
and
MASAKHANE
SECURITY (PTY) LIMITED
Defendant
______________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________
EKSTEEN AJ:
During May 2006
the defendant, a private company providing security services, was
contracted to Transnet Limited to provide security
services on the
train
operating
between Uitenhage and Port Elizabeth. Early in the morning on 31
May 2006 violence erupted on the train on route to
Port Elizabeth
between the Swartkops and New Brighton Stations. In the course of
the events which unfolded in the third last
carriage from the rear
of the train (coach 11850) a security guard in the employ of the
defendant was forcibly thrown from the
moving train and various
shots were fired in coach 11850. One Dietlov (the deceased), a
passenger on the carriage was fatally
injured in the shooting whilst
a number of passenger sustained gunshot wounds.
Two separate
summonses
were issued flowing from these events under case no. 317/08 and
318/08 respectively. The two cases have been consolidated
by order
of court.
The plaintiff in
case no. 317/08, one Liesl
Tarentaal,
claims damages from the defendant in her representative capacity as
mother and natural guardian of her minor child
Shanick Mellissa
Tarentaal. She alleges that the deceased died in the said shooting
on the train when he was shot between the
eyes by one of the
security officers in the employ of the defendant. Tarentaal
contends that she was engaged to be married to
the deceased at the
time of his death and that the minor child had been born from their
union. As a result of his death the
minor child has lost the
maintenance and support which the deceased provided and which he was
in law obliged to provide.
There are four plaintiffs in case no.
318/08. All these plaintiffs allege that they sustained gunshot
wounds at the hands of
the security officers and they accordingly
claim damages from the defendant arising from the injuries which
they sustained in
the incident.
In each case the
plaintiffs contend that the security officers acted negligently in
discharging their firearms in coach 11850
in the presence of other
passengers. In response the defendant has admitted in its plea that
four security officers were present
on the train and that they were
performing security services on behalf of the defendant. Whilst
there is some ambiguity in some
of the pleadings it was common cause
at the trial that the security officers acted within the course and
scope of their employment
with the defendant at all times material
hereto. It is alleged on behalf of the defendant that the four
guards were attacked
by a group of persons armed with bottles, blunt
objects and firearms. It is alleged that a struggled ensued and
when one of
the assailants pointed a firearm at one of the officers,
one Sidlova, he wrestled with the attacker to grab the firearm away
from him in order to save his own life. In the course hereof shots
went off. The defendant alleges that another security officer,
one
Swayana, fired shots when the attack occurred, particularly when
Sidlova was flung from the train, âafter shots were firedâ
and
other employees were physically attacked. It contends that the
shots were fired in order to save the lives of the defendantâs
employees.
In these
circumstances the defendant denies that any of its employees acted
negligently and contends that they acted in self defence
when
discharging their firearms. In addition the defendant denies that
any of the plaintiffs or the deceased were struck by
bullets
discharged by any of its employees.
At a pre-trial
conference
in terms of Rule 37 of the Uniform Rules of Court the parties agreed
to a separation of merits and quantum in terms
of Rule 33(4). Such
a separation was duly ordered. In the circumstances two issues fall
to be determined. First, whether the
deceased or any one of the
plaintiffs in case no. 318/08 was struck by a bullet discharged by
any employee of the defendant.
Secondly, in the event of it being
established that any of the plaintiffs or the deceased was shot by
an employee of the defendant,
then whether such employee acted
negligently in shooting the plaintiff or deceased.
At the time of the
incident a national strike in the security industry was in progress
and had persisted for some weeks. In these
circumstances
security
officers who reported for work did so in plain clothes in order to
promote their own safety. The four security guards
who did duty on
the train between Uitenhage and Port Elizabeth on the morning in
question were all dressed in plain clothes and
had all worked on
this train providing security services for a week or two preceding
the incident. Part of their function on
the train was to inspect
the boarding tickets of commuters and for this reason they were
known to passengers as security officers
prior to the incident.
Coach 11850 was a
typical railway carriage and had two entrances on each side of the
carriage for passengers boarding or alighting
from the train at the
station. There is a single door at each end of the coach permitting
pedestrian traffic from one carriage
to the next while the train is
in motion. It has one row of benches down the length of the coach
on either side facing each
other and there is provision for standing
room between these two rows of benches. There are a number of metal
poles extending
from the floor to the roof of the carriage,
presumably to enable standing passengers to hold on to in order to
stabilise themselves
whilst the train is in motion.
The first
plaintiff in case no. 318/08 (âHartâ)
testified
that he travels on this particular train each day to and from work.
There is usually a group of passengers who sit
on the floor of the
train opposite the entrance to the coach playing dominos. Sidlova
did not approve of this practice and an
argument had previously
arisen between him and some of the domino players. On the fateful
morning the domino players once again
took up their position in
front of the passenger entrance to the carriage. The carriage was
full of passengers with many people
standing in the isle. Hart was
not a domino player but was seated at the end of the row of seats
next to the passengerâs entrance
where the domino players played.
At some stage one of the passengers said âhier kom securityâ.
He saw a short stocky security
official, who, it transpired, was
Sidlova. He was known to Hart as âSidâ. Sidlova approached the
domino players and it
appeared to Hart that he disapproved of their
presence there. An argument arose between Sidlova and one of the
players. In
the course hereof some of the passengers grabbed
Sidlova by the shirt. A struggle ensued. At this stage Hart stood
on his seat
in order to see what was happening. He noticed that the
doors of the train were open even though the train was in motion.
He
saw Sidlova reach behind his back and noticed that Sidlova was
reaching for a firearm which was tucked into his trousers. He
shouted to warn the passengers that Sidlova had a gun and was going
to shoot. At this stage the passengers pushed Sidlova out
of the
moving train without any shots being fired.
When Sidlova was
ejected from the train and as he fell next to the railway line shots
went off
in
the carriage without any warning. Hart says that he saw the
remaining three security guards that were on the train at that
stage
standing outside the door at the end of the carriage and on the
platform between coach 11850 and the next coach, the fourth
coach
from the rear of the train. He says that the security officers were
shooting. Many shots rang out and passengers were
fleeing and
seeking cover. During this shooting he says that he was struck in
the left side. He also noticed the deceased lying
on the ground and
saw that he had been shot between the eyes. He was dead.
Hart
denies that any shots were fired before Sidlova was ejected from the
train. He did not see any passengers armed with firearms
and in his
view nobodyâs life was in danger after Sidlova had been ejected
from the train.
In
cross-examination
Hart
conceded that he had not seen any of the security guards, apart from
Sidlova, in possession of a firearm. He could not see
who was
shooting, but, he maintains that the shots emanated from the door at
the end of the carriage where the security guards
stood.
The second
plaintiff
(âStalmeesterâ)
largely corroborates the version of events to which Hart testified.
He states that he was indeed one of the
domino players that morning.
He saw the security officers arrive and he confirms that they were
dressed in civilian clothes.
They were known to him as security
officers as they had performed duty on the train prior to this
morning. He states that an
argument ensued between one of the
security officers and some passengers about something which had
allegedly occurred the previous
day. A second security officer
intervened and some passengers then grabbed this second security
officer by the shirt. A struggle
ensued. At this stage he went to
take up his seat on one of the benches between the passenger
entrance to the carriage and the
door at the end closest to the
fourth last carriage. He did not actually see Sidlova being thrown
out of the train. He states,
however, that when the struggled
occurred he saw two of the other security officers, a man and a
woman, move on through the door
at the end of coach 11850 to the
fourth carriage. Shortly thereafter the man returned, opened the
door at the end of the carriage
and began to shoot randomly into the
carriage. Stalmeester states that he could see the man shooting
at the end of the carriage
although he did not see his face and
would therefor be unable to identify the person. He was shot in the
abdomen in the course
of this shooting.
The third
plaintiff
(âMossâ)
then testified. He too relates the story of these events as he
observed them. He states that he was seated throughout
on the bench
between the passenger entrance and the door at the end of the
carriage closest to the fourth last carriage. He
noted the security
officers approaching in the carriage and that an argument then
ensued between one of the security officers
and some passengers. He
could not hear what was being said from where he was seated but he
noted the security officer reaching
for a firearm which had been
tucked into his belt behind his back. At this stage passengers
grabbed the security officer and
threw him from the moving train.
Moss did not notice any passengers attacking the security officer
with bottles or any other
weapons. He denies having seen any
passenger in possession of a firearm.
When Sidlova was
thrown from the train
Moss
saw another security officer at the door at the end of the carriage
standing just outside the door. At this stage, after
Sidlova had
been thrown from the train, this security officer opened fire. He
shot indiscriminately until the weapon was empty.
A second security
officer, who was standing immediately behind this security officer,
then provided him with a second weapon
and he again commenced
shooting.
Moss is unable to
state
how many shots were discharged but testified that when the shooting
started, the deceased, who was standing immediately
in front of him,
was hit, first in the buttock and thereafter in the head. He says
that passengers fled and sought cover and
he turned his back on the
shooting looking back from time to time at the security officer
shooting. After the shooting he realised
that he had been struck in
the shoulder and at the back of his head causing superficial
abrasions to his skull.
The fourth
plaintiff
(âBlouwâ)
also corroborates the version of the other plaintiffs in general
terms. He was seated next to Moss. He states
that he did not see
Sidlova being thrown from the train because standing passengers
obscured his view, although he learnt subsequently
of the event.
He states that coach 11850 was full of passengers and that it was
difficult to see what was happening at the pedestrian
entrances to
the carriage.
He noticed the
four security guards enter the carriage checking on boarding
tickets. They
proceeded
past him to approximately opposite the pedestrian entrance to the
carriage. At that stage he noticed security guards
retreat through
the door at the end of the carriage. Having passed through the door
they then returned, opened the door and
from a position outside the
door started shooting randomly into the carriage. From where he and
Moss were seated they could
see their assailant and recognised him.
He was one of the security officials who had been doing duty on the
train ever since
the strike began.
Blouw did not notice any violence
prior to the commencement of this shooting and, although he was
aware of a noise in the vicinity
of where the domino players were
seated he did not witness any fighting.
Blouw states that during the shooting
he saw his assailant lower his firearm and shoot Blouw in the foot.
In addition to the
plaintiff
s
a witness Savahl was called on their behalf. Savahl was a passenger
on the train this morning. He too was acquainted with the
appearance
of the plain clothed security officers and had seen them on the
train before the incident. Savahl did not witness
the struggle with
Sidlova. He saw Sidlova depart through the open door of the moving
train but is not aware of what gave rise
to this. Seconds later he
saw the door at the end of the coach open and one of the security
officers standing outside the door.
At that moment shots began to
ring out.
Savahl was looking
in the direction of the open door at the end of the carriage and
could see the
assailant
with the weapon pointed in his direction. He states that when the
shooting started persons ran and dived for cover.
He believed it
was unnecessary and that the security officers were firing âblanksâ.
He realised his mistake when the deceased,
who was standing right
next to him, was shot in the head and fell to the ground. The
deceased was dead.
Savahl
saw
the security officer continually shooting until his weapon was empty
and then he drew a second weapon from the side of his
body and again
started shooting until this weapon too was empty. At this stage he
sought cover.
At New Brighton
Station the police were present on the station and
disarmed
the security guards confiscating their weapons.
Under
cross-examination Savahl conceded that he only saw two security
officials on the train. One was thrown from the train and
the other
was the person who fired the shots. He did not see any attack on
Sidlova prior to him being thrown from the train.
During cross-examination Savahl was
confronted with a document which purports to be a police statement
minuted from him. In particular
it was suggested to Savahl that on
a proper construction of the statement he had informed the police
that he had heard five to
six shots being fired prior to Sidlova
being thrown off the train. Savahl, for his part, admits his
signature on the statement
and admits that he made a statement to
the police. He states, however, that the statement was not read
back to him prior to
the signature neither was he given a
opportunity to read through the statement before signature. He
denies that he informed
the police of shots fired prior to Sidlova
being pushed out of the train.
The approach which
is to be adopted where there are contradictions between the police
statement and the
viva
voce
evidence of a witness was considered in
S
v Mafaladiso en andere
2003 (1) SACR 583
(SCA) 593e-594h. A summary thereof is contained
in the head note which reads as follows:
â
The juridical
approach to contradictions between two witnesses and contradictions
between the versions of the same witness (such
as,
inter
alia,
between her or his
viva
voce
evidence and a previous statement) is, in principle (even if not in
degree), identical. Indeed, in neither case is the aim to
prove
which of the versions is correct, but to satisfy oneself that the
witness could err, either because of a defective recollection
or
because of dishonesty. The mere fact that it is evident that there
are self contradictions must be approached with caution
by a court.
Firstly, it must be carefully determined what the witness actually
meant to say on each occasion, in order to determine
whether there is
an actual contradiction and what is the precise nature thereof. In
this regard the adjudicator of fact must keep
in mind that a previous
statement is not taken down by means of cross-examination, that there
may be language and cultural difference
between the witness and the
person taking down the statement which can stand in the way of what
precisely was meant, and that the
person giving the statement is
seldom, if ever, asked by the police officer to explain their
statement in detail. Secondly, it
must be kept in mind that not
every error by a witness and not every contradiction or deviation
affects the credibility of a witness.
Non-material deviations are
not necessarily relevant. Thirdly, the contradictory versions must
be considered and evaluated on
a holistic basis. The circumstances
under which the versions were made, the proven reasons for the
contradictions, the actual
effect of the contradictions with regard
to reliability and credibility of the witness, the question whether
the witness was given
a sufficient opportunity to explain the
contradictions â and the quality of the explanations â and the
connection between the
contradictions and the rest of the witnessâ
evidence (must), amongst other factors, be taken into consideration
and weighed up.
Lastly, there is the final task of the trial Judge,
namely to weigh up the previous statement against the
viva
voce
evidence, to consider all the evidence and to decide whether it is
reliable or not and to decide whether the truth has been told,
despite any shortcomings.â
A further fact
that is associated with the quality of the witnessâs explanation
regarding contradictions/omissions is the reaction
of the witness
when confronted with such contradictions or omissions. Different
witnesses will react in different ways. Regard
must always be had
to the type of person the witness is. (See
S
v Govender and Others
2006 (1) SACR 322.)
In the present
instance, I have already stated that the witness Savahl denies that
he ever conveyed the disputed information to
the police official who
took down his statement. He says that he was not afforded the
opportunity to read the statement or to
have it read to him prior to
signature
and he accordingly denied that the police officer recorded what the
witness told him. In the face hereof the police official
who
minuted the statement from him was not called to prove the statement
and the evidence of Savahl in this regard stands uncontradicted.
On
weighing up all the evidence and considering the guidelines set out
above I am by no means satisfied that a self-contradiction
has been
established.
I pause to mention
that a similar approach was followed in respect of statements
allegedly made by the plaintiffs in case no.
318/08. I do not
intend
herein
to analyse questions put to each of them in this regard. Suffice it
to say that when dealing with the various witnesses
I have had
regard to the evidence given by them in connection with all the
aspects dealt with by counsel when questioning them
in connection
with their police statements. In evaluating the credibility and
reliability of each of these witnesses I have
taken all this into
account, adopting the guidelines which I have set out above.
For the defendant
the witness Sidlova testified. Sidlova testified that he and his
colleagues
had completed their duties between Uitenhage and Swartkops Station.
They were not required to perform any duties between
Swartkops
Station and New Brighton Station and accordingly preceded down the
length of the train towards the rear carriage.
Two of his
colleagues proceeded ahead of him into coach 11850. He is unable to
recall how far ahead they were and did not see
them as he entered
coach 11850. As he entered the door at the end of the carriage he
was isolated and he noticed that the carriage
was unusually full of
people. Nobody was seated on the benches but persons stood on top
of the benches and on the floor. As
he entered the coach a man with
a black leather jacket approached him from the front and struck him
on the head with a full 750ml
bottle of Black Label beer.
Simultaneously he was stabbed with a sharp object from behind. He
noticed that one of his assailants
raised a firearm and pointed it
at him. At this stage a struggle ensued as he pushed the firearm
down to the ground in order
to protect himself. In this process the
firearm was discharged into the ground beneath him. He believes
that it was discharged
at least on two occasions but cannot say how
many rounds were fired. Thereafter he was thrown from the train and
does not know
what ensued thereafter.
After the completion of the evidence
of Sidlova a further Rule 37 Minute was prepared and handed in.
This Minute records a number
of agreements relating to firearms
found in the possession of security officers employed by the
defendant.
It was common
cause at the hearing that the four security officers in the employ
of the defendant who served on the train that
morning were one
Tsotsa, a woman and Swayana, Mad
evula
and Sidlova. The admissions recorded in the Rule 37 Minute reveal
that a 9mm Norico firearm with one magazine containing
eight unfired
rounds was found in possession of Tsotsa. A .38 special revolver
(Taurus) was found in possession of Swayana on
the New Brighton
Station immediately after the event. The firearm had four live
rounds in and one empty cartridge. In addition
five empty
cartridges were found in the left jacket pocked of the said Swayana.
At the same time a .38 special revolver (Taurus)
was found in
possession of Madevula together with five used cartridges. There is
no evidence of any other empty cartridges found
on the train or in
possession of anyone who was on the train.
Each of the first
to the fourth plaintiffs
in
case no. 318/08 bear the onus to establish on a balance of
probability that he was injured by a bullet discharged from a
firearm operated by one of the defendantâs employees. Tarentaal,
similarly, bears the onus to establish that the deceased was
shot by
a bullet discharged by an employee of the defendant. In the event
of this being established the defendant would bear
the onus to prove
that the shooting was justified on the grounds pleaded. Compare
Mabaso
v Felix
1981
(3) SA 865
(A) at 173B-F and 174B-E; and
Minister
of Law and Order v Monty
1995 (1) SA 35
(A) at 39D-F and 40A-C.
The first to
fourth plaintiffs made a favourable impression upon me in the
witness box. I did not gain the impression of any
endeavour to
embellish or to mislead. They had all been subjected to an
unexpected traumatic experience and I gained the impression
that
they related, as best they could, their recall of the events. The
witness Savahl too, gave his evidence in a simple straightforward
manner as he related events which transpired directly before him.
Sidlova,
on the other hand, did not make a favourable impression upon me in
the witness box. On numerous occasions lengthy silences
followed
when simple questions were put to him. Some questions simply
remained unanswered.
In considering the
evidence of the plaintiffs I am alive to the discrepancies which
exist between the various versions. Discrepancies
of this nature
are not surprising in the circumstances to which the evidence
relates and in view of the lapse of time from the
incident to trial.
I do not consider these discrepancies to be material to the issues
in dispute. The witness Savahl was standing
five metres away from
the assailant and could see the weapon aimed at him. He presented a
vivid account of his observations.
I was favourably impressed with
the candour and demeanour of this witness in the witness box. He
has no relationship with any
of the plaintiffs and I detected no
apparent bias in his evidence. The deceased was standing directly
alongside Savahl and Savahl
testified that the deceased was shot by
the security officer from the door at the end of the carriage. In
view of his position
in the carriage and his proximity to the
assailant and the deceased I am satisfied that he had sufficient
opportunity to experience
and observe the events which occurred to
give a reliable account thereof. Moss similarly testified that the
deceased was standing
in front of him when he was shot. It occurred
after Sidlova was ejected from the train and nobody other than the
security officer
at the end of the carriage was shooting at the
time.
Both Savahl and
Moss saw the man at the door at the end of the carriage shooting
until his first firearm was empty. He thereafter
obtained a second
firearm. Savahl is of the opinion that the second firearm was drawn
from his side
whilst
Mossâs observation was that the second firearm was handed to him
by his colleague who stood behind him. Both testified
that he
continued shooting with the second firearm as well. This evidence
accords with the admitted facts relating to the empty
cartridges
found in possession of Madevula and of Swayana and in the two
firearms immediately after the incident.
On a consideration
of the totality of the evidence I do not consider that the
discrepancy between the witness Savahl and Moss
in respect of the
manner in which the assailant came to be in possession of the second
firearm detracts materially from the
reliability
of their observations. Furthermore the events to which Sidlova
testified do not accord with the pleaded case that
the four security
guards were attacked by a group of persons. His evidence does not
support the further contention pleaded that
shots were fired by his
colleagues when the attack occurred.
The first, second,
third and fourth plaintiffs
in
case no. 318/08 all testified that after the shooting commenced from
the end of the carriage no other shooting occurred.
They were all
injured in the course of this event. It is apparent from the
evidence of Moss and Hart that this assault only
commenced after
Sidlova had been ejected from the train. No evidence was tendered
to contradict this account. In particular
no evidence was tendered
in respect of any shooting by security officers at the time of the
alleged attack on Sidlova as is pleaded.
In these
circumstances the evidence of Sidlova becomes largely immaterial.
The high water mark of the evidence tendered
by
Sidlova is that two rounds were discharged from a firearm held by a
third party during the course of a struggle when the firearm
was
pushed down so as to point at the ground. Whilst it was put to
Moss during evidence that empty cartridges which do not
belong to
any of the employees of the defendant were found on the train, no
such evidence was forthcoming. Whatever may have
occurred before
Sidlova was ejected from the train does not appear to me to displace
the uncontradicted evidence discussed above.
On a consideration of
the evidence of Savahl and of the first to fourth plaintiffs in case
no. 318/08 I am satisfied that a
reliable account of the shooting
which occurred in coach 11850 after Sidlova was thrown off the train
has been established.
Similarly I am satisfied that the first to
fourth plaintiffs in case no. 318/08 have established that each of
them was shot in
the shooting which occurred after Sidlova had been
ejected.
In
the
circumstances I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the
first to fourth plaintiffs in case no. 318/08 have established
in
each case that they were struck by a bullet discharged by a firearm
held by an employee of the defendant. I am similarly
satisfied
that the evidence has established that the deceased was shot by an
employee of the defendant and that he died as a
result thereof.
It is accordingly incumbent on the
defendant to prove the justification for the shooting. The
difficulty which the defendant
experienced is that neither Madevula
nor Swayana were available to testify. In this regard Sidlova
testified that Madevula has
since passed away and the whereabouts of
Swayana are not known. Tsotsa did not testify either. No reason
was advanced why Tsotsa
did not testify.
In the
circumstances it was fairly conceded by counsel acting for the
defendant that if I find that the plaintiffs have established
that
they were struck
by
bullets discharged by an employee of the defendant, then the
defendant has not established any justification for the shooting.
In these circumstances the first to fourth plaintiffs in case no.
318/08 are entitled to payment of such damages as they are
able to
establish that they have suffered in consequence of the shooting and
the injuries which they have sustained in consequence
thereof on 31
May 2006. The plaintiff in case no. 317/08 is entitled to
payment of such damages as she may establish that
she has suffered,
in her representative capacity, as a result of the shooting of the
deceased on 31 May 2006.
In respect of
costs, there is no reason to depart from the ordinary rule that
costs should follow the result.
In the result I make the following
order:
In case no. 317/08
1. The defendant is
liable to pay to the plaintiff such damages as she may prove that she
has suffered in her representative capacity
as mother and natural
guardian of Shanick Mellissa Tarentaal in consequence of the wrongful
and unlawful shooting of Cornelius
Selwyn Dietlov on 31 May 2006.
2. The defendant is
ordered to pay the plaintiffs costs of these proceedings together
with interest on the plaintiffsâ taxed costs
calculated at the
legal rate from a date fourteen (14) days after taxation to the date
of payment.
In case no. 318/08
1. The defendant is
liable to pay to the first, second, third and fourth plaintiffs such
damages as each of them is able to prove
that he has suffered as a
result of his shooting and the injuries sustained therein on 31 May
2006.
2. Defendant is
ordered to pay the plaintiffsâ costs of these proceedings together
with interest thereon calculated at the legal
rate from a date
fourteen (14) days after taxation to the date of judgment.
__________________
J W EKSTEEN
ACTING JUDGE OF
THE HIGH COURT