Siyambonga Combo v Minister of Police

On 24 April 2018, the plaintiff was a scholar transporter employed by the Department of Education in Mthatha. During a taxi protest requiring law enforcement intervention, the plaintiff attempted to drive through Madeira Street but was blocked by police. When he approached police on foot to inform them he wanted to turn into Elliot Street, he was shot with rubber bullets by police officers in full uniform from approximately 7 meters away. He sustained a gunshot wound to his right thigh (0.5cm length by 2cm depth). He was treated at Mthatha General Hospital on the same day and discharged with referral to a clinic. His vehicle was impounded but released the next day. The plaintiff claimed R3,015,000 comprising general damages (R1,000,000), past loss of earnings, and future loss of earning capacity (R2,000,000), alleging he could not work for 4 months and earned between R6,000-R10,000 monthly as a scholar transporter.

• Whether the plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that he was shot by members of the South African Police Service acting within the course and scope of their employment
• Whether the defendant was vicariously liable for the unlawful shooting of the plaintiff
• Whether the plaintiff proved his damages claims including general damages, past loss of earnings, and future loss of earning capacity
• What quantum of damages was appropriate given the nature and extent of the injuries sustained
• Whether costs should be awarded at High Court or Magistrates' Court scale

1. The defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff R50,000 (fifty thousand rand) for pain and suffering. 2. Costs of suit at the Magistrates' Court scale.

1. In claims for damages against the state for police misconduct, the plaintiff must prove liability on a balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. 2. The state is vicariously liable for unlawful conduct of police officers acting within the course and scope of their employment, including during public order policing operations. 3. Claims for damages must be substantiated by credible evidence; exorbitant amounts cannot be claimed without factual and evidentiary foundation. 4. For economic loss claims (past and future loss of earnings/earning capacity), plaintiffs must provide documentary proof and expert evidence; failure to do so results in rejection of such claims. 5. General damages for pain and suffering must be assessed with reference to the nature and extent of injuries actually proven, guided by previous comparable awards. 6. Where a matter is inappropriately brought in the High Court when it should have been heard in the Magistrates' Court due to inflated claims, costs may be awarded at the lower court scale.

Makaula J made strong obiter comments criticizing the progressive trend of practitioners claiming exorbitant, unsubstantiated amounts in delictual claims against government departments. The court endorsed and applied the SCA's criticism in Diljan v Minister of Police regarding "thumb-sucked" claims. The court expressed concern that claims included heads of damage with no factual basis (such as deprivation of liberty and loss of amenities when the plaintiff was never detained). The court noted it was "dumbfounding" and "disturbing" that R2,000,000 was claimed for future loss of earning capacity when a minor thigh wound caused no permanent disability. The court stated this "nonchalant way in which these particulars of claim were drafted" must be "deprecated and nipped at the bud." The judgment serves as a warning that practitioners must exercise professional responsibility in formulating claims and that courts will not countenance abuse of process through inflated litigation.

This case is significant for its emphatic condemnation of legal practitioners claiming exorbitant, unsubstantiated damages without evidentiary foundation. The judgment reinforces that: (1) practitioners must base claims on reasonable assessments informed by previous awards, not "thumb-sucked" amounts; (2) claims must be properly substantiated with evidence, particularly for economic loss; (3) courts will scrutinize inflated claims and award only what is proven; (4) matters inappropriately brought in the High Court may attract costs at Magistrates' Court scale; and (5) the state's vicarious liability for police conduct during public order operations requires proof on a balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The case demonstrates proper application of delictual principles to police shootings during protests while cautioning against abuse of the civil justice system through excessive claims.