South Africa Case Law

Pope and Another v Hattingh and Another (2548/2016)

Pope and Another v Hattingh and Another (2548/2016) [2021] ZAFSHC 211 (31 August 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2548/2016

Judge

Mhlambi

The court found that Mhone was employed by both defendants and entrusted with the care and safety of the Pope family during their stay at the guesthouse. The defendants' attempts to evade liability by denying joint employment were contradicted by affidavits, pleadings, and evidence. Mhone had access to the guesthouse and the defendants' house, and was responsible for attending to guests. The defendants created the risk by leaving Mhone in charge, and his acts were sufficiently connected to his employment and the business of the defendants. Applying the close connection test and considering th…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Intentional Wrongdoing
• Creation Of Risk
• Close Connection Test
• Employment Relationship

Stallion Security (Pty) Limited v Van Staden (526/2018)

Stallion Security (Pty) Limited v Van Staden (526/2018) [2019] ZASCA 127; (2019) 40 ILJ 2695 (SCA); 2020 (1) SA 64 (SCA) (27 September 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

526/2018

Judges

Leach, Mbha, Dambuza, Van der Merwe, Hughes

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Stallion Security (Pty) Limited is vicariously liable for the loss of support suffered by Ms Van Staden. Although Mr Khumalo committed the murder for his own purposes, Stallion Security created a material risk by granting him special access and responsibilities, including the override key and intimate knowledge of the premises. These powers enabled Mr Khumalo to commit the robbery and murder. Stallion undertook a contractual duty to protect Bidvest staff, including the deceased, and placed Mr Khumalo in charge of this responsibility. The court found a suf…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Loss Of Support
• Creation Of Risk
• Scope Of Employment
• Intentional Wrongdoing

Booysen v Minister of Safety and Security (CCT25/17)

Booysen v Minister of Safety and Security (CCT25/17) [2018] ZACC 18; 2018 (9) BCLR 1029 (CC); 2018 (6) SA 1 (CC); 2018 (2) SACR 607 (CC) (27 June 2018)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT25/17

Judges

Zondo DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Kathree Setiloane AJ, Kollapen AJ, Madlanga J, Mhlantla J, Theron J, Zondi AJ

The majority of the Constitutional Court held that the application for leave to appeal must be refused because the case does not raise a constitutional issue or an arguable point of law of general public importance. The applicant's case was narrowly framed as a challenge to the factual assessment and application of the established test for vicarious liability, without seeking development of the common law or raising a constitutional challenge. The Court reaffirmed that mere dissatisfaction with the application of an accepted legal test does not confer jurisdiction. The majority found that the…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Deviation Case
• Police Misconduct
• Creation Of Risk
• Constitutional Damages
• Domestic Violence

Minister of Law and Order v Ngobo (642/91)

Minister of Law and Order v Ngobo (642/91) [1992] ZASCA 172; 1992 (4) SA 822 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 492 (A) (28 September 1992)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

642/91

Judges

Corbett, Kumleben, Eksteen, Howie, Krieger

The court held that the appellant was not vicariously liable for the fatal shooting committed by the off-duty police constable. The constables were not on duty, did not purport to act as police officers, and were engaged in a private altercation unrelated to police business. The mere fact that the revolvers were issued for official duties did not establish a sufficient link to employment. The court rejected the 'creation of risk' principle as a basis for vicarious liability, reaffirming the standard test that requires the servant to be engaged in the master's business at the time of the delic…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Scope Of Employment
• Creation Of Risk
• Omission Liability

Macala v Town Council of Maokeng (15/91)

Macala v Town Council of Maokeng (15/91) [1992] ZASCA 76; 1993 (1) SA 434 (AD); [1993] 1 All SA 112 (A) (22 May 1992)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

15/91

Judges

Hoexter, Vivier, Goldstone

The court held that a municipal policeman who unlawfully shot the appellant was not acting in the course and scope of employment, so the council was not vicariously liable.

• Vicarious Liability
• Course And Scope Of Employment
• Creation Of Risk
• Municipal Liability
• Vicarious-liability
• Course-and-scope-of-employment

Minister of Police v Rabie (487/82)

Minister of Police v Rabie (487/82) [1985] ZASCA 105; [1986] 1 All SA 361 (A) (27 September 1985)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

487/82

Judges

Jansen, Joubert, Cillié, Van Heerden, Vivier

The court held the State liable for a police officer’s wrongful acts, finding they fell within the risk created by his appointment despite personal malice.

• Vicarious Liability
• Malicious Prosecution
• Scope Of Employment
• Creation Of Risk
• Vicarious-liability
• Malicious-prosecution