Motaung v Fidelity Security Services (52325/2012) [2024] ZAGPPHC 87 (2 February 2024)

Motaung v Fidelity Security Services (52325/2012) [2024] ZAGPPHC 87 (2 February 2024)

The court found that the plaintiff and his witness provided direct, uncontradicted evidence that Fidelity Security officers shot in the direction of the plaintiff, resulting in his injury. The defendant failed to present any evidence to contradict this version or to explain the circumstances of the shooting. The court rejected the defendant's argument that its officers were under SAPS control, noting the absence of any evidence of such deployment. The test for vicarious liability was applied, and the court held that the defendant was most closely connected to the wrongful act. The nature of the projectile was deemed irrelevant to causation, and negligence was sufficient to establish...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 87
Parties
Plaintiff: Sibusiso Motaung; Defendant: Fidelity Security Services
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 2024
Case Number
52325/2012
Procedural Posture
Delictual Action / Liability Trial; Quantum Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Defendant held liable for 100% of plaintiff's proven or agreed damages arising from the shooting.
Judges
Baqwa
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Assault, Negligence, Causation, Wrongfulness
Delict Vicarious Liability Assault Negligence Causation Wrongfulness

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sibusiso Motaung

Plaintiff

Fidelity Security Services

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delictual Action / Liability Trial; Quantum Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was shot and injured by a security guard employed by the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for the acts of its security guard.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's injury was caused by the wrongful and negligent conduct of the security guard.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff and his witness provided direct, uncontradicted evidence that Fidelity Security officers shot in the direction of the plaintiff, resulting in his injury. The defendant failed to present any evidence to contradict this version or to explain the circumstances of the shooting. The court rejected the defendant's argument that its officers were under SAPS control, noting the absence of any evidence of such deployment. The test for vicarious liability was applied, and the court held that the defendant was most closely connected to the wrongful act. The nature of the projectile was deemed irrelevant to causation, and negligence was sufficient to establish...

Court Disposition

Defendant held liable for 100% of plaintiff's proven or agreed damages arising from the shooting.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable to the plaintiff for 100% of his proven or agreed damages arising out of the plaintiff having been shot with a projectile or rubber bullet on 21 September 2009.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the action on the scale as between attorney and client, including costs of senior counsel.