This blog is co-authored by Yuveshen Naidoo, candidate attorney.

In August 2025, the High Court held the Minister of Police liable after the plaintiff, a taxi passenger, was struck by a bullet during a police pursuit in Mthatha. The court found that the risk of injury to innocent persons was foreseeable and that reasonable steps were not taken to avoid the harm.

The incident occurred on 10 August 2018 during a police high‑speed chase of a white Polo. While the chase unfolded, a shot entered the taxi through a window, hit the plaintiff in the chest, and lodged in the arm. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff was shot but denied that police fired the round, suggesting that a suspect did. It was common cause that the plaintiff was inside the taxi when shot, that a J88 recorded the injuries, and that the police involved were acting in the course and scope of employment.

On the totality of the evidence, the plaintiff’s version that the Polo had already passed the taxi when the bullet struck was accepted as more probable. The defence account was found unreliable and improbable. Two evidential gaps weighed heavily against the defendant. First, despite indicating earlier that this would be done, the doctor who completed the J88 was not called. Second, a police officer said to have been present and available was not called, without explanation. The court drew an adverse inference from the failure to call material, available witnesses.

On negligence, the court held that a reasonable officer would foresee the risk of injuring bystanders when discharging firearms during an urban pursuit and would take steps to avoid that harm. The officers failed to take those steps. The shot that struck the taxi was causally linked to that failure.

This decision is a useful reminder for operational planning and claims handling. Live‑fire decisions during pursuits carry a clear bystander‑injury risk. If police alleges that a suspect caused the harm, the version must be supported by coherent scene management, ballistics, and the calling of obvious witnesses.

Matomela v Minister of Police (1445/2019) [2025] ZAECMHC 83 (26 August 2025)