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

Engelbrecht v Van Der Merwe (2415/18)

Engelbrecht v Van Der Merwe (2415/18) [2021] ZANCHC 30 (23 July 2021)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2415/18

Judge

Moses

High Court defamation judgment over emails accusing an attorney-trustee of dishonesty, corruption and incompetence; damages of R800,000 were awarded.

• Defamation
• Damages Assessment
• Publication Of Defamatory Statements
• Intentional Wrongdoing
• Protection From Harassment Act
• Damages

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

Van Staden v Khumalo and Another (89921/15)

Van Staden v Khumalo and Another (89921/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 764 (24 October 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

89921/15

Judge

Brand

The court found that Stallion Security (Pty) Ltd is vicariously liable for the murder committed by its employee, Khumalo, because his employment created both the opportunity and means for the commission of the delict. Khumalo's access to the building, knowledge of the victim's habits, and possession of security equipment were all direct results of his employment. The contractual duty of Stallion to provide access control for the protection of Bidvest's property and employees further strengthened the connection between Khumalo's employment and the wrongful act. Despite Khumalo being off duty a…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Intentional Wrongdoing
• Loss Of Support
• Employment Relationship
• Access Control
• Strict Liability

K v Minister of Safety and Security (456/2003)

K v Minister of Safety and Security (456/2003) [2004] ZASCA 99; [2005] 3 All SA 519 (SCA); 2005 (3) SA 179 (SCA); (2005) 26 ILJ 681 (SCA) (11 November 2004)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

456/03

Judges

Scott, Mthiyane, Van Heerden, Erasmus, Comrie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the police officers' conduct in raping the appellant constituted a complete and intentional deviation from their employment duties, motivated solely by personal gratification. The acts were criminal and fell entirely outside the course and scope of their employment as police officers. The court rejected the argument that the mere fact of being on duty or the existence of a legal duty to protect the appellant rendered the State vicariously liable. The court affirmed that vicarious liability arises only where the wrongful act is committed in furtherance of…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Intentional Wrongdoing
• Scope Of Employment
• Constitutional Rights
• Duty Of Care
• Aquilian Liability