Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 15 of
15
with 100 items per page.
- K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security abstract "K v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in the South African law of delict and South African constitutional law. It was heard by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2005, with judgment handed down on June 13. Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J presided. W. Trengove SC (with him K. Pillay) appeared for the applicant; PF Louw SC (with him JA Babamia) appeared for the respondent. The applicant's counsel was instructed by the Women's Legal Centre, Cape Town. The respondent's attorney was the State Attorney, Johannesburg.The first question addressed in this case was ambit of the courts' duty to develop the common law in accordance with the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights as intended in section 39(2) of Constitution. The purpose of that section, it was determined, is to ensure that the normative value system created by the Constitution permeates the common law. The courts are bound by section 39(2) not only when contemplating a radical departure from existing common-law rules, but also when an incremental development thereof in issue.The second and more central question was the constitutionality of the common-law principles underlying the vicarious liability of an employer for the delictual acts of his employee. The court distinguished between the principles themselves and their application. The traditional notion of the application of these principles as matter of fact untrammelled by considerations of law or normative principles was found to be constitutionally untenable. The application of the principles was accordingly in need of development to conform to the normative framework of the Constitution. This meant no more than that a court must bear in mind constitutional norms when deciding whether the case before it is in principle one in which the employer should be held liable. The principles themselves, as embodied in the present two-stage test, focusing on the subjective question as to the state of mind of the employee, together with the objective question as to whether there is a sufficient link between the conduct of the employee and the employer's enterprise, were found to be consistent with constitutional norms.The particular question to be decided in this matter was the liability of the Minister of Safety and Security for criminal acts committed by police officers while on duty. The police officers in question had been found guilty of rape. To determine whether or not the Minister was vicariously liable, the court used a two-stage common-law test for liability, developed in light of the normative framework of the Constitution. This test, drawn from the case of Minister of Police v Rabie had both a subjective stage (evaluating the state of mind of the employee) and an objective stage (considering the link between the delict and the employer's enterprise). The policemen, subjectively viewed, were found to have acted in pursuit of their own objectives. Their conduct, however, was sufficiently linked to their employment as policemen, particularly when viewed against the background of the Constitution. The Minister, accordingly, was held to be vicariously liable.".
- K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security wikiPageID "38200826".
- K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security wikiPageRevisionID "579994232".
- K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security hasPhotoCollection K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security.
- K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security subject Category:2005_in_South_Africa.
- K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security subject Category:2005_in_case_law.
- K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security subject Category:Constitutional_Court_of_South_Africa_cases.
- K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security subject Category:South_African_delict_case_law.
- K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security comment "K v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in the South African law of delict and South African constitutional law. It was heard by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2005, with judgment handed down on June 13. Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J presided. W. Trengove SC (with him K. Pillay) appeared for the applicant; PF Louw SC (with him JA Babamia) appeared for the respondent.".
- K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security label "K v Minister of Safety and Security".
- K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security sameAs m.0pk_9xx.
- K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security sameAs Q6343048.
- K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security sameAs Q6343048.
- K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security wasDerivedFrom K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security?oldid=579994232.
- K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security isPrimaryTopicOf K_v_Minister_of_Safety_and_Security.