Minister of Safety and Security v Mohofe (200/06) [2007] ZASCA 21; [2007] 4 All SA 697 (SCA); 2007 (4) SA 215 (SCA); 2007 (2) SACR 92 (SCA) (23 March 2007)

Minister of Safety and Security v Mohofe (200/06) [2007] ZASCA 21; [2007] 4 All SA 697 (SCA); 2007 (4) SA 215 (SCA); 2007 (2) SACR 92 (SCA) (23 March 2007)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Inspector Nemengaya acted in accordance with his training and standard police procedures when he announced his presence and ordered the suspects to stop. The court found that, although it was reasonably foreseeable that an armed suspect might shoot at a police officer and injure a bystander, the reasonable police officer would also foresee that suspects might surrender or that allowing them to escape could pose further danger to the public. The court emphasized that Nemengaya had a constitutional and statutory duty to protect the public and apprehend criminals, and his actions were consistent with fulfilling that duty. The risk of harm to bystanders...

Citation
[2007] ZASCA 21
Parties
Appellant: Minister of Safety and Security; Respondent: Mathume Mohofe
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 2007
Case Number
200/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Johannesburg High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Howie, Farlam, Nugent, Lewis, Jafta
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Wrongful Conduct, Loss of Support
Delict Vicarious Liability Negligence Wrongful Conduct Loss of Support

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Safety and Security

Appellant

Mathume Mohofe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Johannesburg High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police officer, Nemengaya, acted negligently in alerting armed robbery suspects to his presence, resulting in the death of an innocent bystander.
  2. 2 Whether the State is vicariously liable for the conduct of Nemengaya under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Inspector Nemengaya acted in accordance with his training and standard police procedures when he announced his presence and ordered the suspects to stop. The court found that, although it was reasonably foreseeable that an armed suspect might shoot at a police officer and injure a bystander, the reasonable police officer would also foresee that suspects might surrender or that allowing them to escape could pose further danger to the public. The court emphasized that Nemengaya had a constitutional and statutory duty to protect the public and apprehend criminals, and his actions were consistent with fulfilling that duty. The risk of harm to bystanders...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The order of the court below is replaced with: 'The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs.'