P.E v Ikwezi Municipality and Another (828/2011) [2016] ZAECGHC 20; [2016] 2 All SA 869 (ECG); [2016] 7 BLLR 723 (ECG); (2016) 37 (ILJ) 1799 (ECG); 2016 (5) SA 114 (ECG) (31 March 2016)
The court found that the second defendant, as Corporate Services Manager and immediate superior to the plaintiff, abused his position of authority to commit a sexual assault in the workplace. The employer placed him in a position of trust and control over the plaintiff's working conditions, which facilitated the opportunity for the assault. The court held that the common law must be developed, in line with constitutional values of dignity and equality, to impose vicarious liability on employers for sexual harassment perpetrated by superior employees. The employer also breached its direct duty of care by failing to adequately protect the plaintiff from further trauma after the assault,...
- Citation
- [2016] ZAECGHC 20
- Parties
- Plaintiff: P. E.; Defendant: Ikwezi Municipality; Defendant: Xola Vincent Jack
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 31 March 2016
- Case Number
- 828/2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Action / Merits Trial; Liability and Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)
- Outcome
- Both defendants are declared jointly and severally liable for such damages as the plaintiff may prove she has suffered in consequence of the sexual assault.
- Judges
- J.D. Pickering
- Legal Topics
- Sexual Harassment, Vicarious Liability, Employer Duty of Care, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Workplace Discrimination, Disciplinary Procedure
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
P. E.
Plaintiff
Ikwezi Municipality
Defendant
Xola Vincent Jack
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Merits Trial; Liability and Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the employer (first defendant) is vicariously liable for sexual assault committed by a superior employee against a subordinate in the workplace.
- 2 Whether the employer breached its legal duty to protect the plaintiff from further trauma pending disciplinary proceedings.
- 3 Whether the actions of the second defendant were sufficiently connected to his employment to justify vicarious liability.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the second defendant, as Corporate Services Manager and immediate superior to the plaintiff, abused his position of authority to commit a sexual assault in the workplace. The employer placed him in a position of trust and control over the plaintiff's working conditions, which facilitated the opportunity for the assault. The court held that the common law must be developed, in line with constitutional values of dignity and equality, to impose vicarious liability on employers for sexual harassment perpetrated by superior employees. The employer also breached its direct duty of care by failing to adequately protect the plaintiff from further trauma after the assault,...
Court Disposition
Both defendants are declared jointly and severally liable for such damages as the plaintiff may prove she has suffered in consequence of the sexual assault.
Orders
- It is declared that the first and second defendants are jointly and severally liable for such damages as the plaintiff may prove she has suffered in consequence of the sexual assault upon her on 16 November 2009 at the offices of first defendant in Jansenville.
- Defendants are ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs of the action on the merits, the one paying the other to be absolved.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment