E S and Another v Minister of Police and Another (10735/2013) [2019] ZAGPJHC 406 (8 August 2019)

E S and Another v Minister of Police and Another (10735/2013) [2019] ZAGPJHC 406 (8 August 2019)

The court found that there was no sufficiently close connection between the conduct of the off-duty police officer and the business of the SAPS to justify the imposition of vicarious liability on the Minister. The officer was not on duty, not in uniform, and driving his private vehicle. The shooting incident arose from a personal altercation following a motor vehicle collision and was not related to any police function. The mere fact that the officer used a police-issued firearm did not create liability, as strict liability is not permissible. There was no element of trust between the deceased and the officer as a police official, distinguishing this case from precedents where such trust...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 406
Parties
Plaintiff: S, E; Plaintiff: S, N; Plaintiff: S, T; Defendant: Minister of Police; Defendant: Lukhele, Constable Lwayiphi
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 August 2019
Case Number
10735/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed with costs.
Judges
L R Adams
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Wrongful Killing, Loss of Support, Road Rage, Use of Service Firearm
Delict Vicarious Liability Wrongful Killing Loss of Support Road Rage Use of Service Firearm

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S, E

Plaintiff

S, N

Plaintiff

S, T

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Lukhele, Constable Lwayiphi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister of Police is vicariously liable for the conduct of an off-duty police officer who shot and killed the plaintiffs' breadwinner.
  2. 2 Whether there was a sufficiently close connection between the wrongful act and the business of the SAPS to justify vicarious liability.
  3. 3 Whether the mere use of a police-issued firearm by an off-duty officer creates liability for the Minister.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no sufficiently close connection between the conduct of the off-duty police officer and the business of the SAPS to justify the imposition of vicarious liability on the Minister. The officer was not on duty, not in uniform, and driving his private vehicle. The shooting incident arose from a personal altercation following a motor vehicle collision and was not related to any police function. The mere fact that the officer used a police-issued firearm did not create liability, as strict liability is not permissible. There was no element of trust between the deceased and the officer as a police official, distinguishing this case from precedents where such trust...

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The claims of the first and second plaintiffs against the first defendant are dismissed with costs.
  • The first and second plaintiffs, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, shall pay the first defendant's costs of this action.