K v Minister of Safety and Security (456/2003) [2004] ZASCA 99; [2005] 3 All SA 519 (SCA); 2005 (3) SA 179 (SCA); (2005) 26 ILJ 681 (SCA) (11 November 2004)

K v Minister of Safety and Security (456/2003) [2004] ZASCA 99; [2005] 3 All SA 519 (SCA); 2005 (3) SA 179 (SCA); (2005) 26 ILJ 681 (SCA) (11 November 2004)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the police officers' conduct in raping the appellant constituted a complete and intentional deviation from their employment duties, motivated solely by personal gratification. The acts were criminal and fell entirely outside the course and scope of their employment as police officers. The court rejected the argument that the mere fact of being on duty or the existence of a legal duty to protect the appellant rendered the State vicariously liable. The court affirmed that vicarious liability arises only where the wrongful act is committed in furtherance of the employer's business or within the scope of employment. The common law test for vicarious...

Citation
[2004] ZASCA 99
Parties
Appellant: N.K.; Respondent: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 November 2004
Case Number
456/03
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Absolution From the Instance in the Johannesburg High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Scott, Mthiyane, Van Heerden, Erasmus, Comrie
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Intentional Wrongdoing, Scope of Employment, Constitutional Rights, Duty of Care, Aquilian Liability
Delict Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Vicarious Liability Intentional Wrongdoing Scope of Employment Constitutional Rights Duty of Care +1 more

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N.K.

Appellant

Minister of Safety and Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Absolution From the Instance in the Johannesburg High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister of Safety and Security is vicariously liable for the criminal acts of police officers who raped the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the police officers fell within the course and scope of their employment.
  3. 3 Whether a breach of a legal duty by police officers can render the State liable for damages in these circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the police officers' conduct in raping the appellant constituted a complete and intentional deviation from their employment duties, motivated solely by personal gratification. The acts were criminal and fell entirely outside the course and scope of their employment as police officers. The court rejected the argument that the mere fact of being on duty or the existence of a legal duty to protect the appellant rendered the State vicariously liable. The court affirmed that vicarious liability arises only where the wrongful act is committed in furtherance of the employer's business or within the scope of employment. The common law test for vicarious...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.