48:, the liability of the Minister of Safety and Security for criminal acts committed by police officers while off duty. An off-duty policeman had pursued persons who had attempted to rob him, and had in so doing shot an innocent third party. The Minister was held to be as liable for the delictual acts of an off-duty policeman who placed himself on duty as for those of an on-duty policeman. The Minister was therefore vicariously liable to the third party, one Allister Roy Luiters. Once an off-duty police officer puts himself on duty, the court held, that officer, for the purposes of vicarious liability, is in same legal position as the police officer ordinarily on duty.
32:
on August 17, 2006. Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Nkabinde J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Van Der
Westhuizen J, Yacoob J and Kondile AJ presided, handing down judgment on November 30. W. Trengove SC and RT Williams SC appeared for the applicant, and HP Viljoen SC and HM Raubenheimer SC for the
129:
69:
Langa CJ, for a unanimous
Constitutional Court, dismissed the application on the basis that there were no prospects of success on appeal. The court determined also that, once off-duty police officers are found, on the facts of a particular case, to have put themselves on duty, as they are empowered
60:
of the
Supreme Court of Appeal in which it upheld a decision of the High Court to the effect that the State was liable in damages for the injuries sustained by the respondent when he was shot by a policeman in the employ of the South African Police Services (SAPS) who, although off duty, had placed
109:
61:
himself on duty by embarking on a pursuit of suspects. He did so on the basis of his contention that the common-law rules governing vicarious liability ought to be developed so as to distinguish between off-duty policemen who placed themselves on duty and on-duty policemen.
85:
263:
70:
and required to do by their employer, they are for the purposes of vicarious liability in exactly the same legal position as police officers who are ordinarily on duty.
161:
57:
121:
268:
94:
273:
37:
175:
101:
29:
145:
137:
33:
respondent. The State
Attorneys, Cape Town, represented the applicant; the respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville.
114:
25:
153:
90:
130:
Fedsure Life
Assurance Ltd and Others v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council and Others
110:
Carmichele v
Minister of Safety and Security and Another (Centre for Applied Legal Studies Intervening)
41:
183:
191:
199:
257:
86:
Alexkor Ltd and
Another v the Richtersveld Community and Others
195:
2002 (5) SA 243 (CC) (2002 (2) SACR 219; 2002 (10) BCLR 1078).
187:
1997 (2) SA 887 (CC) (1997 (1) SACR 369; 1996 (12) BCLR 1588).
36:
An application for leave to appeal against a decision of the
56:
The applicant (the
Minister) sought leave to appeal against
203:
2001 (1) SA 912 (CC) (2001 (1) SACR 1; 2001 (1) BCLR 36).
176:
Phumelela Gaming and
Leisure Ltd v Gründlingh and Others
102:
Bruce and
Another v Fleecytex Johannesburg CC and Others
44:
of an employer for the delictual acts of an employee:
146:
Mabaso v Law Society, Northern Provinces and Another
40:, the case revolved around the question of the
8:
122:Du Plessis and Others v De Klerk and Another
133:1999 (1) SA 374 (CC) (1998 (12) BCLR 1458).
264:Constitutional Court of South Africa cases
105:1998 (2) SA 1143 (CC) (1998 (4) BCLR 415).
169:Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters
162:Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters
149:2005 (2) SA 117 (CC) (2005 (2) BCLR 129).
141:2005 (6) SA 419 (CC) (2005 (9) BCLR 835).
125:1996 (3) SA 850 (CC) (1996 (5) BCLR 658).
21:Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters
213:
7:
138:K v Minister of Safety and Security
14:
113:2001 (4) SA 938 (CC) (2002 (1)
269:2006 in South African case law
1:
274:South African delict case law
26:South African law of delict
24:, an important case in the
290:
154:Minister of Police v Rabie
117:79; 2001 (10) BCLR 995).
16:South African legal case
179:2006 (8) BCLR 883 (CC).
38:Supreme Court of Appeal
165:2006 (4) SA 160 (SCA).
220:2007 (2) SA 106 (CC).
171:2007 (2) SA 106 (CC).
157:1986 (1) SA 117 (A).
93:460 (CC) (2003 (12)
30:Constitutional Court
42:vicarious liability
28:, was heard in the
229:Case No. CCT 23/06
238:Paras 32, 35, 37.
281:
248:
245:
239:
236:
230:
227:
221:
218:
289:
288:
284:
283:
282:
280:
279:
278:
254:
253:
252:
251:
246:
242:
237:
233:
228:
224:
219:
215:
210:
81:
76:
67:
54:
17:
12:
11:
5:
287:
285:
277:
276:
271:
266:
256:
255:
250:
249:
240:
231:
222:
212:
211:
209:
206:
205:
204:
196:
188:
180:
172:
166:
158:
150:
142:
134:
126:
118:
106:
98:
80:
77:
75:
72:
66:
63:
53:
50:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
286:
275:
272:
270:
267:
265:
262:
261:
259:
244:
241:
235:
232:
226:
223:
217:
214:
207:
202:
201:
197:
194:
193:
189:
186:
185:
181:
178:
177:
173:
170:
167:
164:
163:
159:
156:
155:
151:
148:
147:
143:
140:
139:
135:
132:
131:
127:
124:
123:
119:
116:
112:
111:
107:
104:
103:
99:
96:
92:
88:
87:
83:
82:
78:
73:
71:
64:
62:
59:
51:
49:
47:
43:
39:
34:
31:
27:
23:
22:
243:
234:
225:
216:
198:
190:
184:S v Bequinot
182:
174:
168:
160:
152:
144:
136:
128:
120:
108:
100:
84:
68:
55:
45:
35:
20:
19:
18:
192:S v Bierman
258:Categories
200:S v Boesak
74:References
58:a decision
89:2004 (5)
247:Para 35.
79:Case law
65:Judgment
46:in casu
97:1301).
208:Notes
52:Facts
115:SACR
95:BCLR
260::
91:SA
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.