C.F.G v Fidelity Security Services (1886/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC 120 (19 March 2025)

C.F.G v Fidelity Security Services (1886/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC 120 (19 March 2025)

The plaintiff established that he was shot by Faku, an employee of the defendant acting in the course and scope of his employment. The defendant admitted these facts but failed to discharge its onus to justify the shooting. The defendant did not call Faku to testify or provide a satisfactory explanation for his absence, and the only evidence suggesting justification was inadmissible hearsay. The court found that the infringement of the plaintiff's bodily integrity was unlawful and that the defendant is vicariously liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff. The court also determined that certain costs incurred for expert witnesses and late discovery should be borne by the respective...

Citation
[2025] ZAWCHC 120
Parties
Plaintiff: C[...] F[...] G[...]; Defendant: Fidelity Security Services
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2025
Case Number
1886/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits and Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability Only
Outcome
Defendant held liable for plaintiff's damages arising from the shooting; quantum to be determined.
Judges
Slingers
Legal Topics
Bodily Integrity Infringement, Vicarious Liability, Justification for Unlawful Shooting, Onus of Proof, Hearsay Evidence, Costs Order
Delict Bodily Integrity Infringement Vicarious Liability Justification for Unlawful Shooting Onus of Proof Hearsay Evidence Costs Order

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C[...] F[...] G[...]

Plaintiff

Fidelity Security Services

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits and Liability Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was unlawfully shot by an employee of the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant discharged its onus to justify the infringement of the plaintiff's bodily integrity.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff established that he was shot by Faku, an employee of the defendant acting in the course and scope of his employment. The defendant admitted these facts but failed to discharge its onus to justify the shooting. The defendant did not call Faku to testify or provide a satisfactory explanation for his absence, and the only evidence suggesting justification was inadmissible hearsay. The court found that the infringement of the plaintiff's bodily integrity was unlawful and that the defendant is vicariously liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff. The court also determined that certain costs incurred for expert witnesses and late discovery should be borne by the respective...

Court Disposition

Defendant held liable for plaintiff's damages arising from the shooting; quantum to be determined.

Orders

  • The defendant is held liable for the plaintiff's damages, the quantum whereof is yet to be established, arising from his shooting on 7 February 2018.
  • The costs of Stemmet in respect of her preparation for and attendance at court will be for the plaintiff's account.