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
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZAECPEHC 28
|
|
Jack v Minister of Police (1100/2014) [2019] ZAECPEHC 28 (14 May 2019)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN CAPE LOCAL
DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH)
Case No:
1100/2014
In
the matter
between:
JEANETTE
JACK
Plaintiff
And
MINISTER
OF
POLICE
Defendant
JUDGMENT
BESHE
J:
[1]
This is a matter that concerns a
claim for damages in respect of injuries suffered by the
plaintiff on
the 15 August 2012.
[2]
As a result of admissions and
agreements between the parties, the issues that are in dispute
were
narrowed down to the allegations that appear from paragraphs 4 and 5
of plaintiff’s amended particulars of claim. Those
allegations
are the following:
“
4.
On or about 15 August 2012, and on, at or near Bantom Road,
Kwanobuhle, Uitenhage,
a member of the South African Police Services
(“SAPS”), whose further particulars are unknown to the
Plaintiff, wrongfully
and unlawfully, and intentionally, shot the
Plaintiff with a rubber bullet / projectile which struck her above
the right eye,
alternatively,
unlawfully and negligently,
discharged a firearm, discharging rubber bullets / projectiles, in
the direction of the Plaintiff,
and in so doing the Plaintiff was
shot above her right eye, as aforesaid.
5.
In respect of the alternative claim, the said member of the SAPS
acted negligently
and unlawfully in that when he discharged his
firearm he knew, alternatively, should have known:
5.1.
of the presence of the Plaintiff;
5.2.
that the Plaintiff could be struck by the rubber bullet / projectile
so discharged from the said
firearm, by the aforesaid member of the
SAPS, if he discharged the same in the direction of the Plaintiff;
5.3
that the Plaintiff would be injured if struck by the said rubber
bullet / projectile.”
[3]
Aspects that are not in dispute
between the parties are
inter alia
the following:
The
incident in question occurred at Bantom Road KwaNobuhle, Uitenhage.
During that incident the plaintiff suffered injuries to
her right eye
with consequent injury and trauma to her right eye including internal
injuries. The injury included intraochia haemorrhage,
bleeding,
dislocation of the lens of the eye as well as a laceration on the
right brow area. The quantum of damages was conceded
/ admitted by
the defendant, namely that the plaintiff suffered damages in the
amount of R204 968.56 in respect of the following
heads of
damages:
Past
hospital and medical expenses :
R40 558.56.
Future
hospital and medical expenses :
R14 400.00.
General
damages
: R150 000.00.
It
was also admitted that the defendant is vicariously liable for the
conduct of its employees (should it be found that plaintiff’s
injury was caused by any of its employees).
[4]
It is apparent from paragraph 4
of plaintiff’s amended particulars of claim that
plaintiff
alleges that she suffered the injury to her right eye as a result of
being shot at by a member of the South African Police
Service (an
employee of the defendant).
[5]
Defendant pleaded as follows to
these allegations:
“
3.1.
It is denied that a member of the South African Police Service
(“SAPS”) wrongfully and unlawfully,
and intentionally,
alternatively
, negligently discharged a firearm, discharging
rubber bullets / projectiles in the direction of the Plaintiff and in
so doing the
Plaintiff was shot above her right eye.
3.2. 3.2.Defendant pleads
that:
3.2.1. Members of the
Public Order Policing Unit of SAPS (“POPS”) attended to a
scene of a riotous crowd;
3.2.2. The riotous crowd
threw stones at the Police and in other directions;
3.2.3. In order to
control riotous crowd and disperse them, the POPS threw stun grenades
and CS grenades at the riotous crowd;
3.2.4. Plaintiff was
injured with a stone which was thrown by an unknown member of the
public and/or riotous crowd.”
[6]
In support of the plaintiff’s
case the following witnesses testified: The plaintiff,
her son
Mr
Bongani Jack
,
Mr
and
Mrs Matayi
as well as one
Mr
Vuyolwethu Tose
.
[7]
Warrant
Officer Felix
testified on behalf of the defendant.
[8]
It is common cause that after
the incident, the plaintiff’s injury was examined and
assessed
by the parties’ ophthalmic surgeons,
Doctors Gardner
and
Ngxukumeshe
. Both were of the view that plaintiff’s
injuries could have been caused by either a rubber bullet of a stone.
[9]
Common cause is also the fact that there was a demonstration in the
vicinity of Bantom
Street on the day in question. Where the parties
diverge is as regards the
inter alia
the nature of the
demonstration or “toyi-toyi”.
Plaintiff’s
case
[10]
Plaintiff testified that on the day in question she drove to Bantom
Street in order to check
on the progress made with her sofas that
were being upholstered by
Mr Gomma-gomma
. In the car with her
was her son
Bongani Jack
. As she was driving down Bantom
Street she noticed a group of people standing at a corner and one
person appeared to be addressing
them. Not far from where the group
had assembled, there were some police officers as well as a police
van and casspirs. She noticed
that the police were armed with
firearms which she described as guns “that were not small”,
“long guns”.
She drove past the group and the police who
were opposite each other without any incident. On the way back from
Gomma-gomma’s
she once again drove through Bantom Street
the same part she had traversed going to
Gomma-gomma
. This
time she observed that the police were firing towards group of people
using the big guns they were carrying. The crowd was
running in all
directions. Most people ran into nearby homesteads. She also observed
that there was teargas smoke as some of the
people were running past
her vehicle. Fearing that the teargas will cause her an asthma
attack, she stopped the motor vehicle and
asked
Bongani
to
take over driving. She could feel her chest tightening. She alighted
from the motor vehicle in order to change positions with
Bongani
.
As she was going around the car towards the passenger seat, she was
struck by a rubber bullet on her right eye. At that stage
the police
were positioned in front of her vehicle.
Bongani
hid behind
the motor vehicle door as they could hear loud sounds going off which
she described as bullet sounds / sounds of bullets.
Bongani
later managed to help her into the motor vehicle and drove to where
the police were. Upon reaching the police, they both reported
that
she had been struck by a rubber bullet. One of the officials said an
ambulance would be summoned. Later changed to say because
she is
bleeding they must drive to the hospital. This is the same advice
they got at
Doctor Ntlabati’s
rooms to which
Bongani
took her.
Bongani
ultimately took her to Cyler Hospital. After
being discharged from hospital she reported the matter at Mkoko
police station. She
denied that she was struck by a stone from the
crowd saying had that been the case she would have been struck at the
back because
the crowd had run past her. Asked during
cross-examination whether there was a fruit stall in the vicinity of
corner of Bantom
and Rocklands streets, she answered that “There
was no fruit being sold the M’Lady and for that matter, how
would they
be selling on that spot? Because on that day in question
that place was full of people and it was toyi-toyi”. She also
denied
that the teargas would have prevented her from seeing the
police. It was also put to her that that street being a gravel road,
it has many stones. She stated that she did not see members of the
crowd throw stones at the police. Plaintiff indicated that
simultaneously
with being struck on the eye she heard a loud bang.
She also conceded that she did not see the rubber bullet that struck
her. She
was adamant that she did not see anyone throw stones at the
police. It was put to her that the police fired teargas canisters and
a stunt grenade which made a loud sound. She was not able to comment
thereon because she does not know what sound a stunt grenade
makes.
It was also put to her that police only fired rubber bullets at
Ponana Tini Street.
[11]
The plaintiff was also cross-examined about the
contents of a statement she made to the police in connection
with
this incident. In her evidence she had stated that when she saw the
group of people gathered at a street corner, they were
not
“toyi-toying”. Regarding the police statement, it was put
to her that it reflects that she stated that people were
“toyi-toying”. Police were shooting rubber bullets to
disperse or stop the “toyi-toying”. She explained
that in
common parlance “toyi-toying” refers to a group of people
who have gathered in a spot (probably for the purpose
of
demonstrating).
[12]
Asked whether it was wise of her to exit her
vehicle at Bantom Street at the time that she did, she responded
by
saying she can hear what is suggested. And that she did not realise
she would be struck by a bullet if she did so.
[13]
Plaintiff’s evidence was confirmed by her
son
Mr Bongani Jack
. He also testified that some of the
officers they went past as they were driving to
Gomma-gomma
were wearing bullet proof vests. Around their bodies had what
appeared to be bullets straps and some were carrying helmets and
some
had rifles – big firearms. Driving down Bantom Street from
Gomma-gomma
he observed that people were running up the street
some into nearby houses and there was some smoke. Because of the
strong smell
of teargas, his mother brought the car to a halt. As far
as he could observe the people were fleeing from the police who were
firing
shots. The police would stop and reload their rifles. He could
also hear gunshots going off, but the first sound he heard sounded
as
if a bomb was going off. After plaintiff stopped the car they both
opened their respective doors. He held the passenger door
for his
mother to get inside the motor vehicle. At this stage when plaintiff
was behind the car approaching the passenger’s
side of the car,
he felt something hitting the roof of the car. He took cover behind
the passenger door. Plaintiff reached the
spot where he was but he
could not see that she was unsteady on her feet as she had been
struck by a rubber bullet above her eye.
She was bleeding profusely
as that stage.
Bongani
testified that he saw a rubber bullet
lying in a pool of blood next to the back tyre of their motor vehicle
on the passenger’s
side. It was blue in colour. His mother
having boarded the car he drove to where the police were and told
them his mother had been
shot. Plaintiff also spoke to the police. He
ultimately took his mother to Cyler Hospital.
[14]
During cross-examination the witness denied that
the crowd threw stones at the police. Asked if police fired
teargas
and rubber bullets at a peaceful crowd, he stated that from the
debris in the street it appeared as if there had been trouble
/
commotion earlier. Part of the road was blocked with stones and it
appeared as if there had been burning of tyres.
[15]
Mr Vuyolwethu Tose
was another witness to
testify in support of plaintiff’s case. He testified that he
was struck by rubber bullets on the 15
August 2012 on the same day
plaintiff was injured. According to him he was struck by seven (7)
rubber bullets, got injured and
was treated at the Uitenhage
Provincial Hospital. Initially he was treated at Letitia Bam Day
Hospital where he arrived approximately
12h00.
[16]
Tose
stated that before the shooting, he
was standing at the corner of Singaphi Street with friends watching a
group of people who were
holding a meeting and awaiting the arrival
of a councillor at the corner of Bantom Street. Beyond the spot where
the group had
gathered there was a contingent of police, some with
helmets on. They were armed with rifles and wore belts across their
chests
with rubber bullets. According to him, this was at about
11h30. He observed a group of people coming from Ketshani Street,
others
were from Bantom Street. The police moved from where they were
in Bantom Street and proceeded towards the crowd which was in the
same direction as he was standing with his friends. The crowd of
people ran away. It is at that stage that he heard shots ringing.
The
police were firing the shots. He observed plaintiff’s car which
he described as a blue Mazda and saw plaintiff (a woman)
coming out
of the car bleeding and crying. As the witness moved towards Bantom
Street he was struck by several rubber bullets that
were fired by the
police.
Tose
denied that the police only fired shots after the
plaintiff had gone to hospital at 13h00. He also testified that he
observed four
police Hippos at the scene.
Mrs Ellen Matayi
and
her husband
Mr Kholekile Matayi
also testified in support of
plaintiff’s case.
[17]
Mrs Matayi
testified that she did not know
the plaintiff and her son before the incident nor did she see them on
the day in question.
[18]
On 15 August 2012, as is usual every day from
Monday to Friday and sometimes Saturday, she set up her fruit
/
orange vending stall at the intersection of Rocklands and Bantom
Street. She had arrived after 09h00. She got there by driving
in a
convoy with her husband in their bakkies. After assisting her to
unload the bags of oranges her husband left before 12h00
as he was
contracted to collect children whose school day ended at 12h00 from
school.
[19]
Not far from where she was selling oranges was a
group of people who were chanting and burning tyres. Not
long after
her husband left, many police officials in a number of motor vehicles
arrived. Some had helmets on, carried rifles,
had bullet proof vests
(which she described) and wore belts around their torsos with
bullets. When police alighted from their vehicles,
the group that was
gathered there moved away from the spot where they were burning tyres
slightly. The police moved towards the
group of people assembled
there. In order to do so they had to go past her (
Mrs Matayi
).
They threw teargas at the crowd and started shooting at them. In turn
stones were thrown at the police. In the process the window
of her
bakkie was struck by a stone. As to what happened up Bantom Street
after the police went past her she could not see.
[20]
She summoned her husband’s help reporting to
him over the phone that her bakkies’s window had
been damaged.
[21]
Mrs Matayi’s
evidence as far as it
relates to her husband was confirmed by
Mr Matayi
. According
to him he left his wife’s stall to pick up children who knocked
off school at 12h00 and the school was approximately
ten minute drive
away. He also confirmed that having received the report about damage
to her van he drove back to where she was
and saw a number of police
officials and their vehicles. When he got to the scene the oranges
had been loaded back into his wife’s
van. He observed that the
police had helmets and bullet proof vests, had rifles hanging from
their bodies and had belts with bullets
across their chests. He
described the bullets as long and the size of a thumb and there would
be many of them on the belts they
had across their chests.
Evidence
for the defence
[22]
Warrant Officer Felix
who at the time was
attached to Public Order Police Unit, testified that on the 15 August
2012 he was on duty in Uitenhage for
duties connected with the
demolishing of unlawful structures. Whilst still having a briefing at
a shopping complex in KwaNobuhle
Uitenhage, they received a report
that a group of people were burning tyres at Bantom Road and blocking
the road. This was about
09h00. In response to the report, they
proceeded to where they found their colleagues from KwaNobuhle Police
Station. Having spoken
to their colleagues from KwaNobuhle they moved
towards a group of people who had gathered at the scene. The group
started throwing
stones at them. The police in turn threw what
Warrant Officer Felix
referred to as CS and stun grenades
towards the group. The group started running into nearby houses but
continued throwing stones
at them. The police retreated back to where
their vehicles were parked. They were then approached by a woman who
reported damage
to her van. This was next to a fruit stall. The
vehicle was apparently struck by a stone from the protesters. They
were approached
by a second woman who was bleeding and she also made
a report about having been struck by a stone on the forehead.
[23]
Felix
testified that at that stage their
equipment comprising helmets etc. was still in a Nyala vehicle that
they left behind. He denied
that at that stage they had rifles,
bullet proof vests and rubber bullets. He denied that any rubber
bullets were fired at that
stage. Namely at the stage when plaintiff
was injured.
[24]
Felix
took the court through the contents
or his entries in what he termed “an operational diary”.
The relevant entry reads
“10:05 departure to Bantom Street
where plus minus 200 people were gathered.
Major Magasela
tried to address the crowd nobody wants to speak to
Major Magasela
they are burning tyres and blocking the road they start throwing
stones.
Warrant Officer Iverson
threw 2 stun grenades to
disperse the crowd, vehicle CPF 765 EC canopy window is damaged.
Jack
is injured with stones which hit her CPH 676 EC white Colt Bakkie
… … …” He also read an entry in their
occurance book where it reflects that at 11:45
Warrant Officer
Roberts
takes Casper (no given) and log book to KwaNobuhle. Also
reflects arrival at KwaNobuhle at 11:45.
Felix
testified that
there was another incident later that they attended to the
demonstration and at that stage used rubber bullets to
disperse the
unruly crowd. But according to another entry not made by
Felix
,
it is recorded that at 11:45 at a councillor’s office at
KwaNobuhle, stunt grenades and rubber bullets were used to disperse
the crowd.
[25]
It also emerged from
Felix’s
evidence
that POPS’s task is to manage and control crowds, both in
public unrest situations and sports events. That it was
for that
purpose that they were deployed in KwaNobuhle. When they proceeded to
Bantom Road it was on the basis of a report that
there was burning of
tyres, blocking of roads and stone throwing there.
Felix
was
however reluctant to concede that was indication that the crowd was
aggressive and unruly. He agreed that part of crowd control
was to
use rubber bullets. According to him, they approached a group of some
200 people who were throwing stones at them when they
did not have
any protection gear / clothing.
[26]
It transpired during cross-examination that
Felix
and his colleagues fired rubber bullets more than once on that day to
repel a group of demonstrators who threw stones at them.
He however
denied that this happened at the stage when plaintiff got injured.
[27]
It appears to be common cause that two days after
the incident, after being released from hospital, plaintiff
laid a
charge with the police complaining of having been shot by the police.
Warrant Officer Felix
deposed to a statement in connection
with the incident. He stated that plaintiff reported to him that she
was struck with a stone.
He also states that it is the stone throwing
by the crowd of people they were trying to control continued which
led to them (public)
withdrawing and climbing into Nyala vehicles.
This is however contrary to his evidence that at that stage they did
not have their
armoured vehicles at the scene.
[28]
This is the evidence from which I am required to
decide the issue between the parties. Namely, whether the
defendant
is liable for plaintiff’s injury to her right eye? Which will
be so if I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities
that she
sustained the injury as a result of being struck by a rubber bullet
discharged by defendant’s employee, as opposed
to being hit by
a stone from the protesting crowd as defendant suggests.
[29]
It is clear from what is stated above that the
parties’ versions are mutually destructive. The technique
that
is normally adopted by court to resolve factual disputes is
succinctly set out in
National
Employers General Insurance v Jaggers
[1]
and
SFW
Group Ltd & Another v Martell Et Cie & Others
[2]
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) 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 prevail.”
[30]
Applying this technique to the evidence regarding
the credibility of factual witnesses, I have taken the
following
factors into account:
The
plaintiff did not claim to have seen the police shoot at her or the
rubber bullet that struck her. All she is able to say is
that the
police were armed with rifles. She heard bangs as they were chasing a
group of people who were running towards the direction
of her motor
vehicle, with some having gone past it. Had she been struck by a
stone from stone throwers she would have been struck
from behind. Her
evidence is corroborated by her son
Bongani
to a large extent.
[31]
Bongani
takes the narrative further to say
he saw the rubber bullet covered in blood next to where his mother
stood bleeding. He described
it as having been blue in colour. Three
independent witnesses who did not know the plaintiff testified about
the events of that
day. All three confirm that the police wore
protective regalia, had rifles and fired at the group of protestors.
Those witnesses
are
Mr
and
Mrs Matayi
, and
Mr Tose
.
Mr Matayi
did not witness the shooting, but he confirms that
the police had rifles before he left the scene which it would appear
was before
plaintiff got injured.
[32]
Mr Matayi
could not have been referring to
a later stage when the defendant suggests firing of rubber bullets
took place, because after his
wife’s motor vehicle was damaged
at around 12h00 they left the scene. Plaintiff cannot be faulted for
not having observed
the members of the crowd throwing stones at the
police. She says she did not observe that not that it did not happen.
[33]
All the witnesses who testified on behalf of the
plaintiff’s case – all five of them told court that
there
was an armoured vehicle / vehicles at the scene. The police wore
protective gear and had rifles in their possession.
[34]
For the reasons stated above, including the fact
that two of the witnesses were not even aware of plaintiff’s
alleged shooting. The
Matayis
and
Mr Tose
did not even
know the plaintiff and his son, I am satisfied that their evidence
can be relied upon. In my view the three witnesses
are independent
witnesses and unbiased.
[35]
What are the probabilities of a contingent of
officers that are attached to Public Order Police Unit, a
unit that
specializes in crowd control, approaching a group of two hundred
(200) people who were alleged to be blocking roads,
burning tyres and
throwing missiles / stones, without protective gear and proper
ammunition i.e. rubber bullets. This is also in
accordance with
police standing orders which were tabled in court.
Felix’s
explanation was that they had gone there to assess the situation.
What was there to assess – they knew that a group of some
two
hundred (200) people were blocking roads, burning tyres and throwing
missiles. There were only five of them in his team. This
is highly
improbable in my view. It appears that at more than one spot where
rioting was taking place on that day, rubber bullets
were used. How
is it possible that a unit would be dispatched from its headquarters
in Port Elizabeth to go to Uitenhage to quell
riots or demonstrations
only for them to leave their equipment behind in Port Elizabeth as
Felix
at times would suggest. No direct evidence was presented
by or on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff was struck by a
stone
as opposed to a rubber bullet. I am in agreement with
plaintiff’s submissions that defendant’s version is not
reliable,
is not credible and does not accord with the
probabilities.
[36]
The defendant has not pleaded any ground of
jurisdiction for the shooting of the plaintiff save to deny
same. The
defendant has in the alternative pleaded contributory negligence on
the part of the plaintiff. The defendant bears the
onus
of
proving that the negligence of the plaintiff was causally linked to
her injury. In my view they did not discharge this
onus
. In
his evidence,
Felix
did not even see the plaintiff according
to him. So he was not able to say in what way plaintiff was negligent
or what was obtaining
when she stopped the motor vehicle and alighted
there from or what she could have done to avert the mishap that
befell her. It
is not, according to him as if the plaintiff could see
that shots were being fired. In which case she could have foreseen
the possibility
of being struck by a rubber bullet? On the contrary,
according to him, no rubber bullets were fired. In any event, it
would have
been dangerous for the plaintiff to carry on driving with
the onset of an asthma attack eminent or having started.
[37]
On the contrary in my view the fact that
Felix
did not even see the plaintiff’s motor vehicle or the plaintiff
and her son suggests that no measures were taken to ensure
that
innocent by-passers were not caught in the crossfire. That to me
amounts to negligence on the part of defendant’s employees.
[38]
In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the
plaintiff has shown on a balance of probabilities that the
defendant
is liable for the damages she suffered to her right eye.
[39]
Mr Petersen
who is acting for the defendant
argued that in the event that I find in favour of the plaintiff,
costs should be awarded on the
Magistrates’ scale. The basis
for this submission is that the parties agreed that the plaintiff
suffered damages in the amount
of R204 968.56. It must be borne
in mind that plaintiff’s claim was for R550 400.00, an
amount that is excess of
the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’
courts. In my view, plaintiff was therefore within her rights to
institute her claim
in the High Court. In fact the High Court was the
appropriate forum to adjudicate her claim for R550 400.00.
[40]
Accordingly judgment is entered in favour of the plaintiff against
the defendant for:
1. Payment of
R204 968.56.
2. The defendant shall be
liable for interest thereon at the prescribed legal rate with effect
from fourteen (14) days after date
of the judgment to date of
payment.
3. Payment of costs on
the High Court scale from fourteen (14) days of
allocator
to
date of payment.
4. Costs of an inspection
in loco
at the scene, as well as photographs of the scene.
4.1 Costs of the reports
and supplementary reports, if any of:
4.1.1 Dr A Doubell
4.1.2 Dr V Gardiner
4.2 The reasonable
qualifying fees and expenses, if any, of:
4.2.1 Dr A Doubell
4.2.2 Dr V Gardiner
5. The costs of the
preparation of the argument on behalf of the plaintiff.
6.
The costs of the trial on 21, 25 to 28 May 2015; 15 to 18 February
2016, as well as 28 January 2019.
_______________
NG BESHE
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
APPEARANCES
For
the Plaintiff :
Adv: MN Paterson
Instructed
by
: GP
VAN RHYN MINNAAR
& CO
C/o
2 LEXICON ATTORNEYS
2 Clevedon Road
Central
PORT
ELIZABETH
Ref:
GP2/0604
Tel.:
041 – 373 7434
For
the Defendant :
Adv: F Petersen
Instructed
by
:
THE
STATE ATTORNEY
29 Western Road
Central
PORT ELIZABETH
Ref: V Madokwe/610/2014/E
Tel.: 041 – 585
7921
Date/s
Heard
:
21, 25
to 28 May 2015; 15 to 18 February 2016 and 28 January 2019
Date
Reserved
: 28
January 2019
Date
Delivered
: 14 May
2019
[1]
1984 (4) SA 437
at 440 D – G.
[2]
2003 (1) SA 11
at 14 1 – 15E / [5].