About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAFSHC 507
|
|
Minister of Police v Rapudingwane (5524/2019) [2023] ZAFSHC 507 (29 December 2023)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Reportable: YES/NO
Of
Interest to other Judges: YES/NO
Circulate
to Magistrates: YES/NO
Case
Number: 5524/2019
In
the matter between:
MINISTER
OF POLICE
Applicant
/ Defendant
And
THABISO
ANDRIES RAPUDINGWANE
Respondent
/ Plaintiff
HEARD
ON:
This
matter was disposed of without the hearing of oral arguments as
provided for in
s 19
(a)
of
the
Superior
Courts Act 10 of 2013
.
JUDGMENT
BY:
DANISO, J
DELIVERED
ON:
29
DECEMBER 2023
[1]
This is an opposed application for leave to appeal against the
judgment and the consequent order
that I delivered on 4 August 2023
in terms of which I upheld the respondent’s claim arising from
unlawful shooting, arrest
and detention. The respondent was awarded
damages in the amount of R2 416 822.00 incorporating the following
amounts:
1.1.
R2 400 000.00 as damages consequent to unlawful shooting, arrest and
detention;
1.2.
R16 822.00 for past medical and related costs.
[2]
In the grounds of appeal, the applicant essentially asserts that this
court erred in its finding
that the respondent had proved on a
balance of probabilities that he was shot by the police and that the
applicant failed to justify
the lawfulness of the respondent’s
arrest and detention which entitled the respondent to the damages he
was subsequently
awarded. According to the applicant, the plaintiff’s
evidence should have been rejected as false as it was riddled with
inconsistences
and improbabilities. The damages awarded were also
excessive for that reason, another court
will
arrive at a different conclusion.
[3]
The principles governing
applications for leave to appeal are trite:
in
terms of
section 17(1)(a)
of the
Superior
Courts Act 10 of 2013
I am enjoined to grant leave to appeal only
where I am certain that
there
is a reasonable possibility that another court in this instance, the
full bench of this division would come to a different
conclusion
.
It is for the applicant to convince me that the issues raised in the
grounds of appeal have prospects of success on appeal
and that based
on those grounds
another
court would come to a different conclusion.
[4]
The applicant also seeks an order in terms of Uniform
Rule 42
for the
rectification of the amount of R100 000.00 as reflected in paragraph
40 of the judgment to reflect the amount of R1 million.
The argument
is that the amount of R100 000.00 is a patent or arithmetic error as
the total amount in the order includes R1 million
and not R100
000.00.
[5]
I have dealt with all the issues raised by the applicant in the
grounds of appeal including the
heads of argument in my judgment.
From paragraph 23 to 31, I painstakingly evaluated all the evidence
that was proffered and having
considered the merits and demerits of
each version I came to the conclusion that the respondent’s
version had to be preferred
to that of the applicant. The reasons for
that conclusion are also well elucidated therein.
[6]
There is no merit to the applicant’s request for the correction
of paragraph 40 of my judgment
by replacing the amount of R100 000.00
with R1 000 000.00.
Rule 42
(1) (b) is intended to correct errors in
the order or judgment and not the reasons for the order or judgment.
In this matter there
are no errors patent or otherwise in the order
that was subsequently issued. There can be no confusion as to the
amount that I
awarded because the amount is also written in words.
[7]
I am not persuaded that the issues raised by the applicant in this
application would have reasonable
prospects of success. There are
also no compelling reasons why the appeal should be heard.
[8]
In the result the following order is made:
1.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
with costs.
N
S DANISO, J
For
the applicant:
Adv.
M S Mazibuko
Office
of the State Attorney
BLOEMFONTEIN
For
the respondent
Adv.
M A Mashinini
Seobe
Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN