SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Not Reportable
Case no: 2694/2023
In the matter between:
MALESHOANE ALETTA MOFOKENG PLAINTIFF
and
THE MINISTER OF POLICE DEFENDANT
Neutral citation: Maleshoane Aletta Mofokeng v The Minister of Police (2694/2023)
[2026] ZAFSHC 234 (10 April 2026)
Coram: MOLITSOANE J
Heard: 13 February 2026
Delivered: 10 April 2026
Summary: Quantum – delictual damages – unlawful assault – police shooting
– gunshot wound – general damages – future loss of earnings and earning capacity –
future medical and hospital expenses – postponement – unopposed proceedings.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
1 The application for postponement is dismissed with costs , which costs include
the costs of counsel on scale A.
2
2 The defendant is ordered to pay the p laintiff the amount of R1 269 309.00
(One Million Two Hundred and S ixty-Nine T housand and T hree Hundred and N ine
Rand), which is made up as follows:
(a) General damages R700 000.00
(b) Future loss of income R30 856.00
(c) Future medical expenses R538 453.00
3 Payment to the p laintiff must be effected within 60 days from date of this order,
falling which the capital amounts will accrue interest at 10.25% per annum, from date of
judgment to date of final payment.
4 Payment should be effected into the following account:
Account name: Loubser van Wyk Inc
Account type: Trust Account
Bank: First National Bank Hatfield
Account number: 6[…]
Branch code: 252 145
Reference: W2744
5 The defendant to pay the p laintiff’s costs, such to include cost of counsel on
scale C, as well as the qualifying fees of the following experts:
(a) Ms Christa Du Toit (Industrial Psychologist);
(b) Ms Karen Van Der Vyfer (Occupational Therapist);
(c) Dr J F Ziervogel (Orthopaedic Surgeon); and
(d) Ms Michelle Barnard (Actuary).
______________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________
Molitsoane J
[1] This is a claim for delictual damages for personal injury arising out of being shot
by the police. In the amended particulars of claim plaintiff claimed an amount of
R1 449 625 for past and future medical and hospital expenses, past and future loss of
earnings and general damages. On 3 September 2024, the defendant accepted liability
pertaining to the plaintiff’s claim for unlawful assault. This Court found the defendant to
be liable for 100 percent of the plaintiffs agreed or proven damages. The case is before
3
me for the determination of general damages, future loss of earnings and earning
capacity, future medical expenses. The plaintiff does not persist with the claims for past
loss of earnings as well as past medical and hospital expenses.
[2] On th e day of the hearing of this action on damages, the defendant sought a
postponement of the trial. The application for a postponement was opposed. I refused
the application and ordered the trial to proceed. Counsel then appearing for the
defendant, sought permission to withdraw from the proceedings as she informed the
court that she only had instructions to apply for the postponement. I excused her from
the proceedings and the matter proceeded without the defendant being legally
represented.
[3] The plaintiff testified in her own case and did not call any further eyewitnesses.
After the testimony of the plaintiff, counsel moved for an application in terms of
Uniform rule 38(2) together with an application in terms of s 3(1)(c) of the Law of
Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988, for the report of Dr Ziervogel, an orthopaedic
surgeon who has since passed on, to be accepted into evidence. Both these
applications were granted.
[4] The plaintiff testified that on 7 March 2023, she was a passenger in a motor
vehicle driven by her employer. Along the way they met a group of police officers in the
uniform. The police officers raised their firearms in the direction of the motor vehicle in
which they were traveling. Thereafter the police fired at the motor vehicle in which the
plaintiff was. Her employer sped away towards the direction of the police station. The
plaintiff further testified that she sustained a gunshot wound of the upper leg. The
plaintiff also testified about the effect the shooting had on her life. She testified that she
still suffers severe pain and anguish because of the shooting and the injuries she
sustained. She further testified that she was hospitalised and underwent two operations.
sustained. She further testified that she was hospitalised and underwent two operations.
At the time of the incident, she was employed as a domestic worker, cleaning the
house, doing washing and doing normal household chores in the house of her
employer.
[5] It is undisputed that the plaintiff in this case was shot by members of the police.
As to the issue of liability the court has already found the defendant to be liable for the
4
acts of the employees of the defendant. It is also undisputed that the plaintiff suffered an
injury on her upper leg, the thigh. The undisputed evidence is that she has suffered
severe and extensive scarring on the upper leg. The orthopaedic surgeon, the late Dr
Ziervogel, compiled a report in which he set out the injuries the plaintiffs suffered, the
sequelae of caused by the injuries as well as the treatment she had to endure and
would in future also need to endure. He concluded that the impairment and physical
disability of the plaintiff was a total of 6%WPI.
[6] Ms Du Toit, an industrial psychologist also compiled a report. In her report, she
indicated that the plaintiff informed her that the plaintiff must take breaks when
performing jobs and tasks. She noted that the plaintiff has since found her tasks to be
difficult to perform following the accident. She indicated in her report that the plaintiff
informed her that she also now has memory problems. I , however, find it difficult to
accept this in the absence of any expert evidence to that effect. The plaintiff sustained
an injury of a lower limb and there was no evidence to the effect that she also sustained
injuries to her head which could have let to memory problems. However, it appears that
the plaintiff has flashbacks about this incident and at times finds it difficult to sleep. Ms
Du Toit confirmed that at that time of the incident the plaintiff was employed as a
domestic worker and earned an amount of R3 500 per month. It is undisputed that her
employer continued to pay her whilst she was hospitali sed and had not gone back to
work. She has consequently, not suffered any past loss of income. Ms Du To also
confirmed that the plaintiff had suffered loss of any capacity due to the injury she
sustained.
[7] On the other hand, an occupational therapist Mrs Van der Vyver, indicates in her
report that the plaintiff continues to suffer a loss of optimal job efficiency since this
report that the plaintiff continues to suffer a loss of optimal job efficiency since this
incident. She attributes this to physical and probably psychological as well as
psychosocial factors associated with a gunshot injury to the left lower extremity. An
actuarial report was also compiled and its contents are undisputed. The report indicates
that the general contingency deductions were ignored when an assessment of her loss
was income was calculated. I find that this is a fair assessment of the loss and I accept
same as will become apparent in my order below.
5
[8] The principles regarding the assessment of damages relate to what would
constitute fair compensation in a particular matter, considering the circumstances of the
case and the amounts previously awarded in comparable cases; the decrease in the
value of money since those previous cases should also be considered. However, the
assessment of general damages remains in the discretion of the trial court. 1 Having
regard to the previous awards, the injury of the plaintiff the sequelae thereof, I am of the
view that an amount of R700 000 would be a fair and reasonable amount to
compensate her as general damages. I also agree with the amounts of R30 586.00 and
R538 453.00 as proposed in the expert reports being for future loss of income and
future medical expenses.
[9] On the issue of costs, there is no reason why the costs should not follow the
cause. I accordingly make the following order:
1 The application for postponement is dismissed with costs, which costs include
the costs of counsel on scale A.
2 The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the amount of R1 269 309.00
(One Million Two Hundred and Sixty -Nine Thousand and Three Hundred and Nine
Rand), which is made up as follows:
(a) General damages R700 000.00
(b) Future loss of income R30 856.00
(c) Future medical expenses R538 453.00
3 Payment to the plaintiff must be effected within 60 days from date of this order,
failing which the capital amounts will accrue interest at 10.25% per annum, from date of
judgment to date of final payment.
4 Payment should be effected into the following account:
Account name: Loubser van Wyk Inc
Account type: Trust Account
Bank: First National Bank Hatfield
Account number: 6[…]
Branch code: 252 145
Reference: W2744
1 Road Accident Fund v Marunga [2003] ZASCA 19; [2003] 2 All SA 148 (SCA); 2003 (5) SA 164 (SCA)
para 23. See also Fourie and Another v Road Accident Fund 2014 (2) SA 88 (GNP) para 62.
6
5 The defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs, such to include cost of counsel on
scale C, as well as the qualifying fees of the following experts:
(a) Ms Christa Du Toit (Industrial Psychologist);
(b) Ms Karen Van Der Vyfer (Occupational Therapist);
(c) Dr J F Ziervogel (Orthopaedic Surgeon); and
(d) Ms Michelle Barnard (Actuary).
__________________
P E MOLITSOANE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances
For the plaintiff: C Zietsman
Instructed by: Jacobs Fourie Attorneys,
Bloemfontein
For the defendant: No appearance.