Dlanjwa v The Minister of Safety and Security

The appellant, Sanela Dlanjwa, was married to Sergeant Thandikhaya Dlanjwa, a police officer stationed at Central Police Station, Mthatha. The marriage deteriorated in 2005, with the deceased exhibiting violent behavior, heavy drinking, and suspicions of infidelity. He assaulted the appellant, pointed a service firearm at her, and threatened to shoot her and then kill himself. In February 2006, the appellant approached Ngangelizwe Police Station requesting help and that the deceased be disarmed. A police officer dispatched colleagues to see her home safely. On 6 March 2006, after the deceased again pointed the firearm at her and threatened assault, she fled and reported the incident to police the next morning. She was advised to obtain a protection order, which she did, stating in her application that the deceased had hit her, threatened to shoot them both, and threatened to kill himself and her. The magistrate ordered them to undergo counseling. On 19 April 2006, the deceased shot the appellant with his service firearm, causing horrendous injuries to her face, chest and leg, then turned the firearm on himself with fatal consequences. The appellant sued the Minister of Safety and Security and the Station Commander for damages for her injuries and loss of support for herself and their infant triplets.

• Whether the appellant informed police that the deceased had assaulted her, pointed a firearm at her and threatened to shoot her
• Whether police owed a legal duty to protect the appellant from harm by the deceased
• Whether police breached their duty by failing to dispossess the deceased of the firearm, initiate disciplinary steps, or have him criminally charged
• Whether the police's omissions were negligent and wrongful
• Whether there was a causal connection between the police's breach of duty and the harm suffered by the appellant
• The credibility and reliability of witnesses where versions were irreconcilable
• The proper test for evaluating evidence of a single witness

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the Full Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the appeal with costs. This had the effect of reinstating the trial court's judgment holding the Minister and second defendant liable for damages.

The binding legal principles established are: 1. Police have a positive constitutional duty under section 12(1)(c) of the Constitution and statutory duty under the South African Police Service Act to ensure the safety and security of members of the public and to protect them, particularly women and children, from violent crime. 2. When police receive a report of domestic violence involving firearm threats, they have a legal duty to investigate the complaint and take requisite steps to protect the complainant from harm, including initiating procedures to dispossess the perpetrator of firearms. 3. A complainant's unwillingness to lay criminal charges or desire to protect the perpetrator from arrest does not detract from or diminish the police's obligation to act to prevent foreseeable harm. 4. For claims based on wrongful omissions by police, the plaintiff must prove: (a) police owed a legal duty to act; (b) they breached that duty negligently; and (c) there was a causal connection between the negligent breach and the harm suffered. 5. In evaluating the evidence of a single witness, the proper test is not whether the witness is truthful or reliable in all that they say, but whether on a balance of probabilities the essential features of the story are true. Inconsistencies on peripheral matters do not necessarily destroy credibility if the core narrative remains consistent.

The Court made several non-binding observations: 1. The Court noted with concern the tampering with the Domestic Violence Register by a police witness, stating this "naturally cast a long shadow" over his evidence, though it did not base its final decision on this point. 2. The Court observed that the magistrate had ignored the provisions of section 9 of the Domestic Violence Act, which mandates the court to order seizure of firearms where a respondent has threatened to kill or injure someone. The Court noted that the magistrate should have ordered seizure whether or not the applicant specifically requested it. 3. The Court commented on the police station's failure to conduct annual stock-taking of firearms for about five years in breach of police regulations, though this was not central to the legal findings. 4. The Court made observations about the understandability of the appellant's inability to recall precise dates of abuse, noting she was a young, unsophisticated woman who had suffered trauma. 5. Regarding the failure to call a witness (Vuyokazi), the Court noted that while an adverse inference may be drawn when a party fails to call an available witness, this depends on the facts of each case and the strength of the case overall, and the inference might be drawn against both parties if the witness was equally available to both.

This case reinforces the positive constitutional and statutory obligations on the South African Police Service to protect members of the public, particularly women and children, from violent crime. It establishes that police cannot simply advise complainants of their remedies and leave it at that - they have a duty to investigate complaints of domestic violence involving firearms and take steps to prevent foreseeable harm. The judgment confirms that when a person reports domestic violence involving firearm threats, police must act to dispossess the perpetrator of firearms, regardless of whether the complainant wishes to lay charges. The case also provides guidance on evaluating witness credibility where there are inconsistencies, emphasizing that the test is whether the essential features of the testimony are true on a balance of probabilities, not whether every detail is accurate. The case is significant for domestic violence law, establishing that victims' unwillingness to have perpetrators arrested does not diminish police duties to protect them. It also highlights the importance of proper police record-keeping and following prescribed procedures.