Min of Police v Mboweni [2014] ZASCA 107 (5 September 2014)

 Minister of Police v Mboweni [2014] ZASCA 107

Facts

Mr. Wisani Mahlati was arrested by the police and detained at the Ritavi police station. During his detention, two other prisoners in his cell assaulted him. The police did not detect the assault or do anything to prevent it. Mr. Mahlati died five days later from the injuries he sustained in the assault.

Mr. Mahlati's wife, Ms. Vonganai Sharon Mboweni, and their daughter sued the Minister of Police for damages, alleging that the police had breached their duty of care to Mr. Mahlati.

The High Court found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded them damages. The Minister of Police appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether the police had breached their duty of care to Mr. Mahlati.

Reasons

The SCA held that the police had breached their duty of care to Mr. Mahlati. The court reasoned that the police had a duty to protect Mr. Mahlati from harm while he was in their custody. The court also held that the police had failed to take reasonable steps to protect Mr. Mahlati from the assault.

The court noted that the police had been aware of the risk of assault in the cell where Mr. Mahlati was being held. However, the police had failed to take any steps to mitigate the risk. For example, the police had not separated Mr. Mahlati from the other prisoners in the cell.

The court also held that the police had failed to respond adequately to the assault on Mr. Mahlati. The police had not intervened to stop the assault and they had not provided Mr. Mahlati with medical assistance after the assault.

Conclusion

The SCA dismissed the Minister of Police's appeal. The court upheld the High Court's finding that the police had breached their duty of care to Mr. Mahlati and the court affirmed the High Court's award of damages to the plaintiffs.

Summary

The case of Minister of Police v Mboweni is a significant case in South African law. It is one of the first cases in which the SCA has considered the liability of the police for the death of a person in police custody.

The SCA's decision in Minister of Police v Mboweni is based on the following principles:

• The duty of care owed by the police to persons in their custody: The court held that the police have a duty to protect persons in their custody from harm. This duty is based on the principle that the police are in a position of control over persons in their custody and that they have a responsibility to ensure that those persons are safe.
• The standard of care required of the police: The court held that the police must exercise reasonable care to protect persons in their custody from harm. This means that the police must take all reasonable steps to prevent persons in their custody from being harmed.
• The liability of the police for the death of a person in police custody: The court held that the police will be liable for the death of a person in police custody if they breach their duty of care to that person and the breach of duty causes the person's death.

The SCA's decision in Minister of Police v Mboweni has a number of implications. First, it means that the police are now more accountable for the safety of persons in their custody. Second, the decision means that the police must take more proactive steps to protect persons in their custody from harm. Third, the decision means that the police are now more likely to be held liable for the death of a person in police custody.

The decision has been welcomed by some commentators, who argue that it is a victory for human rights and the rule of law. However, other commentators have criticized the decision, arguing that it will make it more difficult for the police to do their jobs and that it will lead to an increase in compensation claims against the police.

Overall, the decision in Minister of Police v Mboweni is a significant case in South African law. It is likely to have a lasting impact on the relationship between the police and the public.

Additional Considerations

The decision in Minister of Police v Mboweni also raises a number of other considerations, such as:

• The impact of the case on the police: The decision is likely to have a significant impact on the police. Police officers will now need to be more careful to protect persons in their custody from harm. Police officers may also be more hesitant to arrest people or detain them in custody, for fear of being sued if something goes wrong.
• The impact of the case on the public: The decision is also likely to have a significant impact on the public.

DE v RH 2015 (5) SA 83 (CC)

DE v RH 2015 (5) SA 83 (CC)

Facts

DE and RH were married. During the marriage, RH committed adultery with Ms H. DE sued RH for damages for adultery, claiming that the adultery had caused him emotional distress and a loss of consortium (i.e., the benefits of marriage).

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that DE could not sue RH for damages for adultery. The SCA reasoned that the delict of adultery (the legal claim for damages for adultery) was outdated and discriminatory. The SCA also held that the delict of adultery was not consistent with the right to dignity enshrined in the South African Constitution.

DE appealed to the Constitutional Court.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether the delict of adultery was constitutional.

Reasons

The Constitutional Court held that the delict of adultery was unconstitutional. The court reasoned that the delict of adultery was discriminatory against women, as it only allowed husbands to sue their wives for adultery. The court also held that the delict of adultery was not consistent with the right to dignity enshrined in the Constitution.

The court noted that adultery is a private matter between spouses and that the state should not interfere in the private lives of citizens. The court also held that the delict of adultery did not deter adultery and that it caused more harm than good.

Conclusion

The Constitutional Court allowed DE's appeal and set aside the SCA's decision. The court held that the delict of adultery was unconstitutional and invalid.

500-Word Summary

The case of DE v RH is a landmark case in South African law. It is the first case in which the Constitutional Court has considered the constitutionality of the delict of adultery.

The Constitutional Court's decision in DE v RH is based on the following principles:

• The principle of non-discrimination: The court held that the delict of adultery was discriminatory against women, as it only allowed husbands to sue their wives for adultery. This is inconsistent with the right to equality enshrined in the Constitution.
• The right to dignity: The court held that the delict of adultery was not consistent with the right to dignity enshrined in the Constitution. Adultery is a private matter between spouses and the state should not interfere in the private lives of citizens.
• The principle of legal certainty: The court held that the delict of adultery was outdated and uncertain. It was no longer clear which acts constituted adultery or which spouses could sue for damages for adultery. This uncertainty was unfair to spouses and made it difficult for them to enforce their rights.

The Constitutional Court's decision in DE v RH has a number of implications. First, it means that spouses can no longer sue each other for damages for adultery. Second, the decision means that the state will not interfere in the private lives of spouses. Third, the decision means that the law of adultery is now more certain and predictable.

The decision has been welcomed by some commentators, who argue that it is a victory for women's rights and individual privacy. However, other commentators have criticized the decision, arguing that it undermines the institution of marriage and that it will lead to an increase in adultery.

Overall, the decision in DE v RH is a significant case in South African law. It is likely to have a lasting impact on the law of adultery and on the relationship between the state and the family.

Additional Considerations

The decision in DE v RH also raises a number of other considerations, such as:

• The impact of the case on the institution of marriage. Some commentators argue that the decision will undermine the institution of marriage by making it easier for spouses to commit adultery. Others argue that the decision will have no impact on the institution of marriage, as adultery is already a common occurrence.
• The role of the state in regulating the private lives of citizens. The decision in DE v RH is a step towards a more liberal approach to state regulation of the private lives of citizens. This approach is based on the principle that the state should not interfere in the private lives of citizens unless there is a compelling public interest to do so.
• The relationship between the Constitution and the common law. The decision in DE v RH is an example of how the Constitutional Court can use its powers to strike down common law rules that are inconsistent with the Constitution. This shows that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that it takes precedence over all other laws, including the common law.

Fose v Minister of Safety and Security 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC)

 Fose v Minister of Safety and Security 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC)

Facts

Mr. Fose was arrested by the police and detained at a police station. While in detention, Mr. Fose was allegedly assaulted by the police. Mr. Fose sued the Minister of Safety and Security for damages, alleging that the police had assaulted him and violated his constitutional rights.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether Mr. Fose could claim damages for the violation of his constitutional rights.

Reasons

The Constitutional Court held that Mr. Fose could claim damages for the violation of his constitutional rights. The court reasoned that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that all organs of state are bound by it. The court also held that the Constitution guarantees a number of fundamental rights, including the right to freedom from torture and the right to dignity.

The court noted that the police have a duty to protect the rights of persons in their custody. The court also held that the state is liable for damages if the police breach this duty.

The court found that Mr. Fose had been assaulted by the police and that his constitutional rights had been violated. The court therefore awarded Mr. Fose damages for the pain and suffering he had endured.

Conclusion

The Constitutional Court allowed Mr. Fose's appeal and awarded him damages for the violation of his constitutional rights.

Summary

The case of Fose v Minister of Safety and Security is a landmark case in South African law. It is the first case in which the Constitutional Court has considered whether individuals can claim damages for the violation of their constitutional rights.

The Constitutional Court's decision in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security is based on the following principles:

• The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all organs of state are bound by it.
• The Constitution guarantees a number of fundamental rights, including the right to freedom from torture and the right to dignity.
• The police have a duty to protect the rights of persons in their custody.
• The state is liable for damages if the police breach this duty.
• Individuals can claim damages for the violation of their constitutional rights.

The Constitutional Court's decision in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security has a number of implications. First, it means that individuals now have a more effective means of enforcing their constitutional rights. Second, the decision means that the state is now more accountable for the way it treats its citizens. Third, the decision means that individuals who suffer harm as a result of the state's violation of their constitutional rights may be able to claim damages.

The decision has been welcomed by some commentators, who argue that it is a victory for human rights and the rule of law. However, other commentators have criticized the decision, arguing that it will place an undue burden on the state and that it will lead to an increase in litigation.

Overall, the decision in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security is a significant case in South African law. It is likely to have a lasting impact on the way the state treats its citizens and on the way individuals can enforce their constitutional rights.

Additional Considerations

The decision in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security also raises a number of other considerations, such as:

• The impact of the case on the state: The decision is likely to have a significant impact on the state. The state will now need to be more careful to respect the constitutional rights of its citizens. This may lead to the state increasing its spending on training its employees on human rights and on developing systems to ensure that human rights are respected.
• The impact of the case on individuals: The decision is also likely to have a significant impact on individuals. Individuals will now be more likely to report violations of their constitutional rights and they will be more likely to claim damages for such violations. This may lead to an increase in the number of cases brought before the courts.
• The impact of the case on the law of constitutional rights: The decision may also have an impact on the law of constitutional rights in general. The court's broad interpretation of the Constitution and its willingness to award damages for breaches of constitutional rights may lead to more individuals claiming damages from the state for breaches of other constitutional rights.

Overall, the decision in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security is a complex case with a number of important implications. It is likely to have a lasting impact on the relationship between the state and its citizens in South Africa.