Brooks v Minister of Safety and Security (036/08) [2008] ZASCA 141; 2009 (2) SA 94 (SCA) ; [2009] 2 All SA 17 (SCA) (27 November 2008)

Brooks v Minister of Safety and Security (036/08) [2008] ZASCA 141; 2009 (2) SA 94 (SCA) ; [2009] 2 All SA 17 (SCA) (27 November 2008)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's claim for loss of support arising from the lawful incarceration of his father, Neil Brooks, cannot succeed in law. The dependants' action for loss of support is limited to cases where the breadwinner has been unlawfully killed, not where the breadwinner is alive but incapacitated due to lawful imprisonment. The court distinguished the present case from Van Duivenboden, where the claim was for bodily injury, and reaffirmed that the deprivation of support resulting from lawful incarceration is a consequence of the law taking its course, not a wrongful act giving rise to Aquilian liability. Extending the remedy to cover such circumstances...

Citation
[2008] ZASCA 141
Parties
Appellant: Aaron Jonathan Brooks; Respondent: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 2008
Case Number
036/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (cape Town) Decision on Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Mpati, Farlam, Ponnan, Kgomo, Mhlantla
Legal Topics
Loss of Support, Wrongfulness, Aquilian Liability, Dependants Action, Causal Nexus
Delict Loss of Support Wrongfulness Aquilian Liability Dependants Action Causal Nexus

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aaron Jonathan Brooks

Appellant

Minister of Safety and Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (cape Town) Decision on Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State is liable in delict for loss of support suffered by a dependant due to the incarceration of the breadwinner.
  2. 2 Whether the police owed a legal duty to prevent the breadwinner from possessing firearms, and whether their omission was wrongful towards the dependant.
  3. 3 Whether there is a causal nexus between the alleged omission and the loss suffered by the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's claim for loss of support arising from the lawful incarceration of his father, Neil Brooks, cannot succeed in law. The dependants' action for loss of support is limited to cases where the breadwinner has been unlawfully killed, not where the breadwinner is alive but incapacitated due to lawful imprisonment. The court distinguished the present case from Van Duivenboden, where the claim was for bodily injury, and reaffirmed that the deprivation of support resulting from lawful incarceration is a consequence of the law taking its course, not a wrongful act giving rise to Aquilian liability. Extending the remedy to cover such circumstances...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including those consequent upon the employment of two counsel.