South Africa Case Law

Member of the Executive Council Education Department Gauteng and Another v Nkosi and Another, In Re: Nkosi and Another v Mokonyama and Others (07/12835)

Member of the Executive Council Education Department Gauteng and Another v Nkosi and Another, In Re: Nkosi and Another v Mokonyama and Others (07/12835) [2019] ZAGPJHC 496 (29 November 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

07/12835

Judge

M A Makume

The High Court granted leave to appeal on the merits in a civil matter involving school negligence, firearm licensing, and causation issues.

• Leave To Appeal
• School Negligence
• Firearm Licensing
• Factual And Legal Causation
• Leave-to-appeal
• School-negligence

S v Rautenbach (164/2012)

S v Rautenbach (164/2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 105 (28 March 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

164/2012

Judge

Vally

The court found no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify a departure from the minimum sentence for murder. The accused's claim of diminished moral blameworthiness due to intoxication was rejected, as there was no evidence of substantial impairment at the time of the offence. The accused's actions immediately after the murder demonstrated clear intent and rational decision-making. The theft, though involving items of negligible value, was committed with callous disregard for the deceased and warranted a severe sentence. The sentences for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammun…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentencing
• Moral Blameworthiness
• Intoxication
• Concurrent Sentences
• Firearm Licensing
• Time Spent Awaiting Trial

Pieterse v Minister of Safety: Republic of South Africa (1696/05)

Pieterse v Minister of Safety: Republic of South Africa (1696/05) [2007] ZANCHC 48 (27 July 2007)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1696/05

Judge

L P Tlaletsi

The court found that the second defendant, although issued a firearm for official duties, deviated from his duties and committed the killing for personal reasons unrelated to his employment. There was no sufficient connection between his employment and the wrongful act to establish vicarious liability. However, the first defendant, as an organ of state, owed a duty of care to the public when issuing firearms. The commanding officer failed to properly investigate the second defendant's suitability, ignoring previous convictions and disciplinary findings. This omission was negligent and created…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Negligent Omission
• Firearm Licensing
• Duty Of Care
• Constitutional Rights

Minister of Safety and Security v De Lima (063/2004)

Minister of Safety and Security v De Lima (063/2004) [2005] ZASCA 3; [2006] 4 All SA 433 (SCA); 2005 (5) SA 575 (SCA) (3 March 2005)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

063/2004

Judges

Zulman, Mthiyane, Conradie, Cloete, Maya

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the police were negligent in recommending and issuing a firearm licence to Dos Santos. The police failed to conduct a proper interview and did not investigate the circumstances of the assault charge and its withdrawal, despite clear indications that Dos Santos may have had a temperament unsuitable for firearm ownership. The statutory and regulatory framework required the police to assess the applicant's suitability, which included making reasonable enquiries when information surfaced that could affect the decision. The negligence of the police in failing…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Firearm Licensing
• Duty Of Care
• Causation

Minister of Safety and Security v Hamilton (457/2002)

Minister of Safety and Security v Hamilton (457/2002) [2003] ZASCA 98; [2003] 4 All SA 117 (SCA); 2004 (2) SA 216 (SCA) (26 September 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

457/2002

Judges

Howie, Mthiyane, Conradie, Heher, Van Heerden

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that police authorities responsible for considering, investigating, and recommending firearm licence applications are under a legal duty, actionable in delict, to take reasonable steps to investigate the fitness of applicants. This duty arises from both common law and statutory provisions, including the Arms and Ammunition Act and the Special Force Order. The police negligently breached this duty by failing to make even basic enquiries into McArdell's mental stability and suitability, relying solely on her own representations and personal observations. Had rea…

Source excerpt

• Negligent Omission
• Duty Of Care
• Firearm Licensing
• Causation
• Public Safety
• Statutory Interpretation