Minister of Safety and Security and others v Craig and Others (572/08) [2009] ZASCA 97; [2010] 1 All SA 126 (SCA) ; 2011 (1) SACR 469 (SCA) (17 September 2009)

Minister of Safety and Security and others v Craig and Others (572/08) [2009] ZASCA 97; [2010] 1 All SA 126 (SCA) ; 2011 (1) SACR 469 (SCA) (17 September 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court's credibility findings and assessment of probabilities were not supported by the record. The evidence did not establish that the district surgeon issued a clear instruction to hospitalise the deceased, nor that the police ignored such an instruction. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 97
Parties
Appellant: Minister of Safety and Security; Appellant: Charge Office Commander of the Hammarsdale Police Station; Appellant: Musawakhe Morris Mwandla; Respondent: Loraine Craig; Respondent: Loraine Craig NO
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2009
Case Number
572/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Pietermaritzburg, on Liability for Delictual Damages
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the court below set aside and substituted with dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims with costs.
Judges
Navsa, Brand, Ponnan, Mlambo, Mhlantla
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care to Arrested Persons, Loss of Support, Police Liability, Credibility of Witnesses
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Duty of Care to Arrested Persons Loss of Support Police Liability Credibility of Witnesses

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Safety and Security

Appellant

Charge Office Commander of the Hammarsdale Police Station

Appellant

Musawakhe Morris Mwandla

Appellant

Loraine Craig

Respondent

Loraine Craig NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Pietermaritzburg, on Liability for Delictual Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police officers breached their legal duty to ensure the wellbeing of an arrested person.
  2. 2 Whether the police were negligent in failing to secure immediate medical attention for the deceased.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence supported the existence and communication of a medical instruction to hospitalise the deceased.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court's credibility findings and assessment of probabilities were not supported by the record. The evidence did not establish that the district surgeon issued a clear instruction to hospitalise the deceased, nor that the police ignored such an instruction. The deceased was examined and found to be 'well' except for minor injuries, showed no obvious signs of distress, and refused examination by paramedics. The police responded appropriately to family concerns and acted expeditiously when the deceased later complained of feeling unwell. The court held that the police were not negligent in the circumstances and that liability did not arise.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the court below set aside and substituted with dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court below is set aside and substituted with: 'The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with costs, including the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.'