South Africa Case Law

MEC for Education, KwaZulu-Natal v Singh (1188/2021)

MEC for Education, KwaZulu-Natal v Singh (1188/2021) [2023] ZASCA 92; [2023] 9 BLLR 863 (SCA); (2023) 44 ILJ 2447 (SCA) (9 June 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1188/2021

Judges

Ponnan, Meyer, Olsen

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that wrongfulness was not established in respect of the department's alleged omission to intervene in the workplace dispute between Ms Singh and the principal. The court found that the statutory and regulatory framework governing educators, including grievance and disciplinary procedures, provided adequate remedies for complaints of victimisation and psychiatric harm. Ms Singh failed to utilize these procedures, and her omission to do so precluded a finding of wrongfulness against the department. The employment relationship alone does not create a duty on the…

Source excerpt

• Wrongfulness Of Omission
• Constructive Dismissal
• Grievance Procedure
• Psychiatric Injury
• Employment Of Educators Act
• Liability For Psychological Harm

South African Hang and Paragliding Association and Another v Bewick (1010/2013)

South African Hang and Paragliding Association and Another v Bewick (1010/2013) [2015] ZASCA 34; 2015 (3) SA 449 (SCA); [2015] 2 All SA 581 (SCA) (25 March 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1010/2013

Judges

Brand, Mhlantla, Leach, Saldulker, Mbha

The SCA held that, even if tandem paragliding for reward was illegal, SAHPA and SACAA were not delictually liable for failing to stop it.

• Wrongfulness Of Omission
• Statutory Duty
• Causation
• Aviation Regulation
• Liability For Illegal Activity
• Delict

Minister of Safety and Security and Another v Madyibi (1034/2004)

Minister of Safety and Security and Another v Madyibi (1034/2004) [2008] ZAECHC 180 (30 October 2008)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

1034/2004

Judge

X. M. Petse

The court held that, even if the defendants had not conceded wrongfulness at trial, the facts established that the police officials owed a legal duty to act to prevent harm to the plaintiff and her children. The regulatory framework governing the issuance and withdrawal of state firearms was designed to prevent precisely the type of harm suffered. The officials' failure to withdraw the deceased's firearm permission, despite knowledge of his violent and suicidal tendencies, was both negligent and wrongful in the delictual sense. Public and legal policy, informed by constitutional values of acc…

Source excerpt

• Wrongfulness Of Omission
• Vicarious Liability
• Leave To Appeal
• Execution Of Costs Order
• Public Policy In Delict
• Police Regulatory Compliance