Ngcatu Kunsani v Minister of Police and Others

The plaintiff instituted an action for damages against the Minister of Police and senior SAPS officials, alleging that members of the South African Police Service unlawfully assaulted him at his home after accusing him of possessing unlicensed firearms and dagga. During the litigation, after pleadings had closed, the plaintiff sought further discovery under Rule 35(3) of the Uniform Rules of Court, specifically an inquest docket allegedly relevant to the assault. The defendants opposed the interlocutory application to compel discovery, contending that the inquest docket was in the possession of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID), an independent body outside their control, that the documents were irrelevant, and that there was a misjoinder or non-joinder of IPID and a lack of cause of action.

The points of law raised by the defendants were dismissed. The defendants were ordered to serve a reply to the plaintiff’s Rule 35(3) notice within 10 days and to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally on Scale B.

The judgment affirms a broad and practical interpretation of 'possession or control' for discovery under Rule 35(3) and reinforces the principle that defendants cannot evade discovery obligations by relying on the involvement of independent investigative bodies such as IPID. It also clarifies that IPID’s independence does not displace the Minister of Police’s vicarious liability for unlawful conduct by SAPS members, thereby strengthening access to information and fair trial rights in civil claims against the police.