Jaftha v Minister of Correctional Services (1342/2009) [2012] ZAECPEHC 15; [2012] 2 All SA 286 (ECP) (28 February 2012)

Jaftha v Minister of Correctional Services (1342/2009) [2012] ZAECPEHC 15; [2012] 2 All SA 286 (ECP) (28 February 2012)

The court found that the defendant's employees were negligent in failing to properly segregate the plaintiff and his assailant after a violent altercation, and in failing to supervise the medical treatment during which the assailant obtained a surgical blade and attacked the plaintiff. The risk of further violence was reasonably foreseeable, as evidenced by the decision to strip-search and segregate the prisoners. The failure to use available facilities to keep the prisoners separated and to ensure adequate supervision in the hospital constituted a breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The defendant had the means and resources to prevent the harm but failed to do so, resulting...

Citation
[2012] ZAECPEHC 15
Parties
Plaintiff: Moegamat Fatieg Jaftha; Defendant: The Honourable Minister of Correctional Services
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 February 2012
Case Number
1342/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Liability / Merits Trial; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Defendant held liable for damages arising from the bodily injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the assault by a fellow prisoner.
Judges
GG Goosen
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Prisoner Safety, Segregation of Inmates, Correctional Services Act
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Duty of Care Prisoner Safety Segregation of Inmates Correctional Services Act

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moegamat Fatieg Jaftha

Plaintiff

The Honourable Minister of Correctional Services

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Liability / Merits Trial; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's employees were negligent in failing to prevent the attack on the plaintiff by a fellow inmate.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached its duty of care to ensure the plaintiff's safe custody and physical integrity.
  3. 3 Whether the harm suffered by the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable and preventable by reasonable measures.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's employees were negligent in failing to properly segregate the plaintiff and his assailant after a violent altercation, and in failing to supervise the medical treatment during which the assailant obtained a surgical blade and attacked the plaintiff. The risk of further violence was reasonably foreseeable, as evidenced by the decision to strip-search and segregate the prisoners. The failure to use available facilities to keep the prisoners separated and to ensure adequate supervision in the hospital constituted a breach of the duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The defendant had the means and resources to prevent the harm but failed to do so, resulting...

Court Disposition

Defendant held liable for damages arising from the bodily injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the assault by a fellow prisoner.

Orders

  • The defendant is declared liable to the plaintiff for whatever damages he may have suffered arising from the bodily injuries sustained in the assault perpetrated on him by a fellow prisoner at the St. Albans Prison Hospital on 16 May 2007.
  • Costs are reserved.