Phoebus Apollo Aviation CC v Minister of Safety and Security (CCT19/02) [2002] ZACC 26; 2003 (1) BCLR 14 ; 2003 (2) SA 34 (CC) (28 November 2002)

Phoebus Apollo Aviation CC v Minister of Safety and Security (CCT19/02) [2002] ZACC 26; 2003 (1) BCLR 14 ; 2003 (2) SA 34 (CC) (28 November 2002)

The Constitutional Court held that the Minister of Safety and Security is not vicariously liable for the theft committed by the three police officers, as they were not acting in the course and scope of their employment but were pursuing their own interests. The appellant's constitutional right to property under section 25 was not engaged, as the deprivation was caused by private robbers and not by state action. The duties imposed on the police by the Constitution did not extend liability to the respondent in these circumstances. The common law test for vicarious liability is consistent with the Constitution, and there was no basis for developing the law to impose absolute liability on the...

Citation
[2002] ZACC 26
Parties
Appellant: Phoebus Apollo Aviation CC; Respondent: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2002
Case Number
CCT 19/02
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal to Constitutional Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Kriegler, Chaskalson, Langa, Goldstone, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Section 25 Property Rights, Development of Common Law, Police Duties, Wrongfulness, Constitutional Jurisdiction
Constitutional Law Delict Vicarious Liability Section 25 Property Rights Development of Common Law Police Duties Wrongfulness Constitutional Jurisdiction

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phoebus Apollo Aviation CC

Appellant

Minister of Safety and Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal to Constitutional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the Minister of Safety and Security vicariously liable for the theft committed by three police officers?
  2. 2 Does the appellant's constitutional right to property under section 25 of the Constitution provide a basis for liability?
  3. 3 Should the common law of vicarious liability be developed to impose absolute liability on the state for police misconduct?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the Minister of Safety and Security is not vicariously liable for the theft committed by the three police officers, as they were not acting in the course and scope of their employment but were pursuing their own interests. The appellant's constitutional right to property under section 25 was not engaged, as the deprivation was caused by private robbers and not by state action. The duties imposed on the police by the Constitution did not extend liability to the respondent in these circumstances. The common law test for vicarious liability is consistent with the Constitution, and there was no basis for developing the law to impose absolute liability on the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.