South Africa Case Law

Manzini v Great North Transport (Pty) Ltd (34404/2007)

Manzini v Great North Transport (Pty) Ltd (34404/2007) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1114 (1 September 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

34404/2007

Judge

Makhoba

The court found that the shooting incident occurred while both the plaintiff and Mr. Hlongwane were on duty and within the defendant's premises. However, the act of shooting was not connected to the plaintiff's employment duties but rather stemmed from a personal dispute. Therefore, the risk was not incidental to employment, and the claim was not precluded by section 35 of COIDA. The exception raised by the defendant was dismissed as the plaintiff was only required to plead material facts, not evidence or law. The defendant was held liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages arising from…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Course And Scope Of Employment
• Compensation For Occupational Injuries
• Special Plea
• Exception To Particulars Of Claim

Pamana and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (437/2020)

Pamana and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (437/2020) [2023] ZAFSHC 172 (15 May 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

437/2020

Judge

Naidoo

The court found that the first plaintiff and the deceased were employed as correctional officials, were at their place of employment, and were performing their duties when the incident occurred. Their work environment was inherently dangerous, and they were exposed daily to risks such as attacks by inmates. The evidence established a causal connection between the incident and their employment, making the risk of such attacks inherent and incidental to their duties. The plaintiffs had claimed and received compensation under COIDA, confirming the applicability of the Act. The court held that se…

Source excerpt

• Compensation For Occupational Injuries And Diseases Act
• Course And Scope Of Employment
• Common Law Claims
• Constitutional Rights
• Special Plea
• Causal Connection

Karibuni Security Services CC v Mec, Department of Health NC Province (2558/2017)

Karibuni Security Services CC v Mec, Department of Health NC Province (2558/2017) [2020] ZANCHC 62 (26 June 2020)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2558/2017

Judges

Olivier, Mamosebo, Mayet

The majority held that the appellant, Karibuni Security Services CC, was not a Temporary Employment Service (TES) as defined in section 198(1) of the Labour Relations Act, but rather an independent contractor providing security services to the Department. The contract between the parties indicated the provision of services, not the placement of employees. The deeming provision in section 198A(3)(b)(i) did not apply, as the guards were not performing 'temporary service' and the Department never assumed the responsibilities of employer. The protestors were found not to be acting within the cour…

Source excerpt

• Temporary Employment Service
• Vicarious Liability
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Contractual Liability
• Urgent Interdict
• Course And Scope Of Employment

Karibuni Security Services CC v MEC, Department of Health Province (2558/2017)

Karibuni Security Services CC v MEC, Department of Health Province (2558/2017) [2020] ZANCHC 39 (26 June 2020)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2558/2017

Judges

Olivier, Mamosebo, Mayet

The majority held that Karibuni Security Services CC was not a Temporary Employment Service (TES) as contemplated in section 198(1) of the Labour Relations Act, but rather an independent contractor providing security services. The contract between Karibuni and the Department was for the provision of services, not personnel, and the guards were not performing 'temporary service' as defined in section 198A. The court found that the protestors were not on duty at the relevant times and were not acting within the course and scope of their employment with the appellant. There was insufficient evid…

Source excerpt

• Temporary Employment Service
• Vicarious Liability
• Urgent Interdict
• Contractual Liability
• Jurisdiction
• Course And Scope Of Employment

Mathibela v Minister of Police (36972/2017)

Mathibela v Minister of Police (36972/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 4 (15 January 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

36972/2017

Judge

Mavundla

The court found that Seloane, a police officer, unlawfully shot the plaintiff with his SAPS-issued firearm while off duty, acting with intent to kill. Although Seloane was on his own frolic, the defendant failed in its constitutional and statutory duties by not ensuring Seloane surrendered his firearm when off duty and by not enforcing competency and psychological debriefing requirements after prior misconduct. The defendant's omissions created a foreseeable risk of harm to the public, particularly given Seloane's history of firearm misuse. The court held that there was a sufficiently close l…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Negligence
• Unlawful Shooting
• Police Liability
• Course And Scope Of Employment

Ogwang v Minister of Police (10305/2017)

Ogwang v Minister of Police (10305/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 625 (25 October 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

10305/2017

Judge

Swanepoel

The court found that the police officer who assaulted the plaintiff was not acting within the course and scope of his employment. The officer was off-duty, in civilian attire, and his actions were motivated by personal reasons unrelated to police functions. There was no evidence that he exercised any official police powers during the incident. Objectively, the conduct was not sufficiently connected to his employment to render the State vicariously liable. The court distinguished the present facts from cases where the creation of risk or constitutional obligations imposed liability, finding th…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Course And Scope Of Employment
• Police Liability
• Assault
• Damages

De Gee v Transnet SOC Ltd (30085/2015)

De Gee v Transnet SOC Ltd (30085/2015) [2019] ZAGPJHC 2; 2020 (2) SA 488 (GJ) (29 January 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

30085/2015

Judge

CHJ Badenhorst

The High Court held that COIDA did not bar a claim by an employee injured in a lift before work, because the stated facts did not prove he was acting in the course of employment.

• Compensation For Occupational Injuries
• Course And Scope Of Employment
• Statutory Bar Of Claims
• Special Plea
• Occupational Injury
• Coida

R.M v Mokgethi and Another (393/2015)

R.M v Mokgethi and Another (393/2015) [2018] ZANWHC 86; 2019 (1) SACR 511 (NWM) (15 November 2018)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

393/2015

Judge

N Gutta

The court found that the deceased police officer was off duty at the time of the assault and rape, and his conduct was for his own purposes, not in the course and scope of employment. Although the plaintiff trusted the officer due to his position and uniform, the facts did not establish a sufficiently close connection between the wrongful act and the employment to render the Minister of Police vicariously liable. The plaintiff was not a vulnerable person seeking protection, and the officer's employment did not facilitate the abuse of trust in a manner that would justify state liability. The c…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Rape
• Assault
• Course And Scope Of Employment
• Constitutional Rights
• Transmissibility Of Non Patrimonial Claims

Tsotetsi v The Honourable Magistrate Delize Smith and Another (23969/2015)

Tsotetsi v The Honourable Magistrate Delize Smith and Another (23969/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 329 (29 November 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

23969/2015

Judge

Van der Linde

The court held that judicial immunity does not protect magistrates from liability for damages where their conduct is malicious or in bad faith. The Minister of Justice, as the statutory employer of magistrates, may be vicariously liable for such malicious acts performed within the course and scope of employment. The Supreme Court of Appeal has not overruled this position, and the common law principle remains that immunity is forfeited in cases of malice. The special pleas raised by the defendants, asserting immunity and lack of vicarious liability, were dismissed as they do not preclude liabi…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Immunity
• Vicarious Liability
• Malicious Prosecution
• Magistrates Courts Act
• Course And Scope Of Employment

Bebani v Minister of Police and Others (611/2013)

Bebani v Minister of Police and Others (611/2013) [2016] ZALMPTHC 1 (28 January 2016)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

611/2013

Judge

MF Kganyago

The court found that the third defendant, although a police officer and using his service firearm, was acting solely in pursuit of his own interests when he shot the plaintiff. There was no evidence that the plaintiff placed any trust in the third defendant as a police officer, nor was it clear that she was aware of his status at the time of the incident. The third defendant's conduct was not related to the business or obligations of the first defendant, and there was no sufficiently close link between his actions and his employment. Accordingly, the requirements for vicarious liability were…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Negligence
• Course And Scope Of Employment
• Police Liability