The Eastern Cape High Court in Mthatha has dismissed a R16 million damages claim by former Walter Sisulu University student Zizipho Bridgette Zide, who lost sight in her right eye during a 2016 campus protest.
The court found her testimony unreliable and upheld the security firms' defence of voluntary assumption of risk. Zide had blamed the guard's negligence for her injuries sustained during the tumultuous day on 8 June 2016 when the student protests prevailed across South Africa. The protest action turned violent, threatening the safety of non-protesting students and university property. Zide's claims assert that she was shot while in the Chumani residence on campus, a location that became central to the battle of narratives between her and the security firms involved.
The protests were part of a nationwide movement across South African universities, primarily focusing on issues of access to education and student fees. These protests, while largely peaceful, occasionally turned violent, leading to increased security measures on campuses across the country.
The initial trial court dismissed Zide's claims, arguing inconsistencies and highlighting credible testimonies from security officers who vehemently contested her accounts of the day. The first respondent, Xhobani Security Services, argued their guards acted in self-defence amidst chaos while Falcon Firearm Training Academy, the second respondent, claimed its personnel were in no way involved in the injury she suffered.
Legal representatives for Zide countered these claims, asserting that the Xhobani Security Services personnel were indeed responsible for the shooting. They labelled the court's previous ruling erroneous, citing a lack of consideration for critical evidence and the credibility of Zide's testimony. Zide's case hinges on whether she was positioned in a place of safety within her residence when shot or whether she voluntarily entered the fray by being near the protesters, ultimately placing her at risk.
In her testimony, Zide described an alarming sequence of events: while she was on a stairway landing, she encountered a security guard who allegedly pointed a firearm at her before shooting. Conversely, security personnel asserted they maintained their positions away from the residential halls, amidst rows of aggressive students hurling objects.
However, Judge L Rusi, with Judge GNZ Mjali and Judge MS Jolwana in agreement, was unconvinced. He wrote in the judgment, "I have come to the conclusion that the whole edifice of the appellant's case must collapse, the appeal must therefore be dismissed, as its very foundation is shaky, to put it mildly. The alternative defence of voluntary assumption of injury that the first and second respondents put forward must succeed for, inter alia, the reason that the appellant could not and did not put up any version about how else the situation could have been handled as she chose to distance herself from the protests. This has left the respondents' version in that regard uncontested."
Judge Rusi continued, "With all that having been said, it would be insensitive of this court not to acknowledge the pain and horror of what the appellant experienced when she lost sight in her eye. While there ought indeed to be sympathy for the appellant's plight, the fact that she elected not to be candid and presented a false version of events regarding the circumstances under which she was shot militates against her succeeding with the result that the version of the respondents prevails. The appeal must accordingly fail."
#Conviction
