Steyn v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (H15/2008, 13603/2011) [2013] ZAWCHC 24 (18 February 2013)

Steyn v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (H15/2008, 13603/2011) [2013] ZAWCHC 24 (18 February 2013)

The court found that there is a reasonable possibility that another court could reach a different conclusion regarding the vicarious liability of the second defendant for the acts and omissions of National Prosecuting Authority personnel. The court also considered that the plaintiff's discharge of the onus of proof...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] ZAWCHC 24
Parties
Plaintiff: Jurita Steyn; Defendant: Minister of Safety & Security; Applicant: Minister of Justice & Constitutional Development
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2013
Case Number
H15/2008, 13603/2011
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal on all grounds set out in the notice of application for leave to appeal dated 20 August 2012.
Judges
N.J. Yekiso
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Onus of Proof, Damages, National Prosecuting Authority
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Vicarious Liability Onus of Proof Damages National Prosecuting Authority

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jurita Steyn

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety & Security

Defendant

Minister of Justice & Constitutional Development

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of personnel in the employ of the National Prosecuting Authority.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has discharged the onus of proof in respect of damages allegedly suffered in her personal capacity.
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there is a reasonable possibility that another court could reach a different conclusion regarding the vicarious liability of the second defendant for the acts and omissions of National Prosecuting Authority personnel. The court also considered that the plaintiff's discharge of the onus of proof in respect of damages suffered in her personal capacity is a material issue that warrants reconsideration. Given the potential nationwide implications for the National Prosecuting Authority, leave to appeal was granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal on all grounds set out in the notice of application for leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal on all grounds set out in the notice of application for leave to appeal dated 20 August 2012.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the applicant (second defendant) to the Supreme Court of Appeal on all grounds set out in the notice of application for leave to appeal dated 20 August 2012, including the question whether the plaintiff has succeeded to prove damages allegedly suffered in her personal capacity.
  • The costs of the application for leave to appeal shall be costs in the proposed appeal.