CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another v TFN Diamond Cutting Works (Pty) Ltd

CitationCase Number: 070/04 [2005] ZASCA 33
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
DelictVicarious LiabilityCustoms and Excise LawEmployment Law

Facts of the Case

TFN Diamond Cutting Works (Pty) Ltd, a diamond cutting company, purchased rough diamonds in South Africa. On 20 October 2000, its director Mr Glowiczower travelled to New York with a consignment of diamonds that had been sealed by the South African Diamond Board. He sold some diamonds in New York and returned to South Africa on 8 November 2000. Upon arrival at Johannesburg International Airport, he declared the remaining diamonds to customs officials. Due to missing documentation, the diamonds were detained and placed in a sealed plastic pouch in a locked safe within a strongroom at the customs hall. The safe was under the control of customs employees. On 10 November 2000, when proper documentation was presented to secure release of the diamonds, they were discovered missing. Evidence established that Joseph Matshiva, an employee of the Commissioner (SARS), who had custody of the safe keys during his shift, had stolen the diamonds.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the Commissioner/State was vicariously liable for the theft of diamonds by its employee Matshiva when he was entrusted with custody of the safe containing the diamonds
  • Whether the employee's act of theft was committed within the course and scope of his employment
  • Whether section 17(3) of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 exempted the State from liability for loss of goods in a State warehouse caused by theft by an employee

Judicial Outcome

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The appellants were held jointly and severally liable to the respondent for the loss of its diamonds in such damages as may be agreed or proved.

Ratio Decidendi

An employer is vicariously liable for theft committed by an employee where the employee was entrusted with custody and safeguarding of the stolen property as part of their employment duties. If an employer would be liable for an employee's negligent failure to safeguard entrusted property, it cannot escape liability when the employee acts intentionally (through theft) rather than negligently - both are forms of fault. Section 17(3) of the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964, which exempts the State from liability for 'any loss' of goods in a State warehouse, does not encompass loss occasioned by theft by a State employee. Statutory exemptions from liability must be strictly construed and will not be extended to cover situations not expressly stated, particularly where such construction would lead to absurd results such as allowing a thief to benefit from their own wrongdoing.

Obiter Dicta

The court assumed without deciding that the strongroom in the customs hall at Johannesburg International Airport constituted a 'State warehouse' as defined in the Customs and Excise Act. The court noted that the reason for the rule of vicarious liability is often stated to be public policy, with an underlying consideration being that an employer creates a risk of harm to others when work is done through employees who may prove negligent, inefficient or untrustworthy.

Legal Significance

This case is significant in South African law for clarifying the scope of vicarious liability for intentional wrongdoing by employees, particularly theft. It establishes that an employer cannot escape vicarious liability merely because an employee acted intentionally rather than negligently when the wrongful act occurred within the course and scope of employment. The case also provides important guidance on the strict construction of statutory exemptions from liability, confirming that such provisions will not be extended beyond their clear meaning and that absurd results inconsistent with legislative intent must be avoided. The judgment reinforces the principle that where an employee is entrusted with custody of property as part of their employment duties, the employer bears vicarious liability for theft of that property by the employee.

Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 20 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cited By 49 Cases

  • American Natural Soda Ash Corp and CHC Global (Pty) Ltd v Botswana Ash (Pty) Ltd and OthersCase No. 64CAC/AUG/06
    Applies

    The court applies the principle that mere direct use immunity is sufficient, with the trial judge having discretion to exclude derivative evidence if necessary…

  • Antonio Van Willing and Fareez Mohamed v The State(109/2014) [2015] ZASCA 52 (27 March 2015)
    Applies

    Court applies the principles from paras 171, 177 that the true test for admitting hearsay is whether the interest of justice demands it, and that prejudice…

  • Billiton Aluminium SA Ltd t/a Hillside Aluminium v Ntokozo Archibald Khanyile(CCT 72/09) [2010] ZACC 3
    Cites

    Cited for the considerations that play an important role in determining whether further evidence on appeal should be allowed.

  • City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Gauteng Development Tribunal and Others(CCT 89/09) [2010] ZACC 11
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the determination of where the interests of justice lie involves balancing all relevant factors including prospects of success…

  • Dingaan Hendrik Nyathi v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health, Gauteng and Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development(CCT 19/07) [2008] ZACC 8
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that declaring a statutory provision invalid is constitutionally serious and that constitutional challenges must be based on objective…

  • Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another[2020] ZACC 25
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the interpretation of legislation that limits a fundamental right implicates the Constitution.

  • Elsie Gundwana v Steko Development CC and Others(CCT 44/10) [2011] ZACC 14
    Cites

    Cited in support of the requirements for admission of affidavit evidence by amicus curiae under Rule 31(1) of Constitutional Court Rules.

  • Exxaro Coal (Pty) Ltd v Gabriel ChipanaCase no: JA161/17
    Cites

    Respondent relied on this case concerning the application of the hearsay provisions in the Law of Evidence Amendment Act

  • Falk and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions(CCT 95/10) [2011] ZACC 26
    Applies

    Applied to establish that the primary purpose of Chapter 5 of POCA is not punitive, but to ensure that no person benefits from wrongdoing, and its secondary…

  • Gary Patrick Porritt & Susan Hilary Bennett v The National Director of Public Prosecutions & others(978/2013) [2014] ZASCA 168 (21 October 2014)
    Applies

    Applied to explain that the right to a fair trial requires a substantive approach and must also be fair to the public as represented by the State.

  • Genesis Medical Scheme v Registrar of Medical Schemes and Another[2017] ZACC 16
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that statutes should be interpreted consistently.

  • Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others(CCT 48/10) [2011] ZACC 6
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that corruption undermines the rule of law and principles of good governance.

  • Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited v Registrar of Medical Schemes(168/07) [2008] ZASCA 39 (28 March 2008)
    Cites

    Cited for reliance upon the rule of statutory construction from Chotabhai that every part of a statute should be construed to be consistent with other parts…

  • Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Limited v Kwazulu-Natal Law Society and Others[2019] ZACC 47
    Cites

    Cited to affirm the canon of statutory interpretation that words should be construed restrictively to avoid clashes with provisions in another statute and that…

  • Isaac Mlungisi Mhlambi v The State(593/20) [2021] ZASCA 49 (21 April 2021)
    Cites

    Court cites this case as authority that affirmed the principles stated in S v Rabie.

  • Jacobus Bogaards v The State(CCT 120/11) [2012] ZACC 23
    Cites

    Cited to explain that this Court does not ordinarily hear appeals on sentence based on incorrect evaluation of facts, and that fairness is not one-sided.

  • Lindiwe Mazibuko, MP v Max Vuyisile Sisulu, MP (Speaker of the National Assembly)(CCT 115/12) [2013] ZACC 28
    Cites

    Cited for the principle requiring accuracy in identifying challenged provisions in constitutional litigation.

  • Lorraine Sophie Botha and Another v Henry Robins Rich N.O. and Others[2014] ZACC 11
    Cites

    Court cites this case to echo the rule of statutory construction that legislation should not defeat its clear purpose.

  • Lufuno Mphaphuli & Associates (Pty) Ltd v Andrews and Another; Lufuno Mphaphuli & Associates (Pty) Ltd v Bopanang Construction CC(CCT 97/07) [2009] ZACC 6
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that jurisdiction alone is not decisive and that the interests of justice must be assessed.

  • Maharaj Sathyandranath Ragunanan & Others v Mandag Centre of Investigative Journalism NPC & Others(844/2016) [2017] ZASCA 138 (29 September 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for background context on the conviction of Shaik on counts of corruption relating to bribery.

  • Maria Mampies and Another v Sandvliet (Pty) LtdLCC63/2017
    Applies

    The court applies Shaik to explain the purpose of Rule 16A, which is to bring constitutional challenges to the attention of persons who may be affected,…

  • Mario Gaspare Oriani-Ambrosini, MP v Maxwell Vuyisile Sisulu, MP Speaker of the National Assembly(CCT 16/12) [2012] ZACC 27
    Cites

    Cited to caution that constitutional challenges must be pleaded concisely and accurately.

  • Member of the Executive Council for Education in Gauteng Province and Others v Governing Body of the Rivonia Primary School and Others[2013] ZACC 34
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that this Court decides cases on the basis of the pleaded cause of action and cannot decide a matter on a claim not pleaded.

  • Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning of the Western Cape v Lagoonbay Lifestyle Estate (Pty) Ltd and Others(CCT 41/13) [2013] ZACC 39
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that constitutional challenges must be properly pleaded and ventilated in lower courts.

  • National Credit Regulator v Opperman(CCT 34/12) [2012] ZACC 29
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that forfeiture must be consistent with the Constitution.

  • National Director of Public Prosecutions v Botha N.O. and Another[2020] ZACC 6
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that it is generally appropriate for all direct profits of crime to be confiscated to ensure criminals do not enjoy fruits of crime.

  • National Director of Public Prosecutions v David Cunningham King(86/09) [2010] ZASCA 8 (8 March 2010)
    Applies

    Applied to the principle that fairness requires balance to the public as represented by the state and that irregularities do not necessarily lead to failure of…

  • National Director of Public Prosecutions v Media 24 Limited & others and Henri Christo Van Breda v Media 24 Limited & others(425/2017 and 426/2017) [2017] ZASCA 97 (21 June 2017)
    Cites

    High court refused application to televise the criminal trial of Schabir Shaik on corruption charges, prioritising individual rights of witnesses and the…

  • National Director of Public Prosecutions v Peter Graham Gardener and Rodney Mitchell(582/09) [2011] ZASCA 25 (18 March 2011)
    Applies

    Applied to explain that confiscation discretion is peculiarly a matter for the convicting court and will only be interfered with if the court acted…

  • National Director of Public Prosecutions v Ramlutchman(677/15) [2016] ZASCA 202 (9 December 2016)
    Applies

    The court applied this judgment's interpretation of the word 'benefit', which held that a person will have benefitted from unlawful activities if he or she has…

  • Nhlapo v The State(835/2021) [2022] ZASCA 125 (26 September 2022)
    Cites

    Court cites the principle on the limited power of an appellate court to interfere with a sentence imposed by a lower court.

  • Phillips and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions(CCT 55/04) [2005] ZACC 15
    Cites

    Cited for the importance of specificity and accuracy in constitutional pleadings.

  • Pieter Doorewaard and Another v The State(908/2019) [2020] ZASCA 155 (27 November 2020)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction, but to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be…

  • Prophet v National Director of Public Prosecutions(CCT 56/05) [2006] ZACC 17
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the interests of justice involves considering multiple factors including but not limited to prospects of success, and for the…

  • Ramabele v The State; Msimango v The State[2020] ZACC 22
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the right to a fair trial requires a substantive approach and that fairness is not a one-way street but also requires fairness to…

  • Ramokolo v The State(251/10) [2011] ZASCA 77
    Applies

    Applied for the proposition that the seriousness of corruption cannot be overemphasised as it offends against the rule of law and threatens the constitutional…

  • Rathumbu v S(369/11) [2012] ZASCA 51 (30 March 2012)
    Cites

    Cited to support the principle that courts must have regard to every factor mentioned in section 3(1)(c) when determining whether to admit hearsay evidence in…

  • Richard Ditshele Molimi v The State(CCT 10/07) [2008] ZACC 2
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the right to a fair trial requires a substantive rather than formal or textual approach.

  • Road Accident Fund v Vusumzi Mdeyide (Minister for Transport Intervening)(CCT 10/10) [2010] ZACC 18
    Cites

    This case is cited for the principle that constitutional validity is an objective question.

  • Sali v National Commissioner of the South African Police Service and Others[2014] ZACC 19
    Cites

    Cited to support the fundamental principle of constitutional litigation that requires accuracy in the identification of the provision of legislation being…

  • Simon Prophet v The National Director of Public ProsecutionsCase CCT 56/05 (Constitutional Court, judgment delivered 29 September 2006)
    Applies

    The Court applies this case for the principle that prospects of success and other factors must be assessed together when determining whether it is in the…

  • South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Another v Garvas and Others; Congress of South African Trade Unions intervening; Freedom of Expression Institute as Amicus Curiae(CCT 112/11) [2012] ZACC 13
    Applies

    Applied to emphasise the importance of accuracy in pleadings when challenging the validity of Acts of Parliament, and that the Court refused leave to appeal…

  • Sylla Moussa v The State and The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development(181/2014) [2015] ZASCA 61 (14 April 2015)
    Cites

    Cited and quoted within the Porritt judgment for the proposition that the right to a fair trial requires a substantive, not formal approach, and fairness to…

  • The Crown Restaurant CC v Gold Reef City Theme Park (Pty) LtdCase CCT 05/07
    Follows

    The Court cites this case for the principle that litigants should take care to properly identify at the time of institution of proceedings which constitutional…

  • Tshivhulana Royal Family v Netshivhulana[2016] ZACC 47
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave depends on a careful and balanced weighing-up of all relevant factors…

  • Van Zyl N.O. v Road Accident Fund[2021] ZACC 44
    Cites

    Cited for the general principle that other statutes inform the context in which a statutory provision must be interpreted.

  • Wary Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Stalwo (Pty) Ltd and Another(CCT 78/07) [2008] ZACC 12
    Cites

    Cited for the rule of statutory construction that every part of a statute should be construed to be consistent with every other unrepealed statute enacted by…

  • Watson Kelemogile Lekalake v EOH Mthombo (Pty) LtdCase no: JS 895/19, Labour Court, Johannesburg
    Cites

    Cited for the exposition on the seriousness of corruption offences, emphasizing that corruption threatens the constitutional order and courts must send a…

  • Wycliffe Simiyu Koyabe and Others v Minister for Home Affairs and Others(CCT 53/08) [2009] ZACC 23
    Cites

    Cited as authority for the requirement that there be prospects of success and that it is in the interests of justice to hear a matter in applications for leave…

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Explore More Cases

More Delict cases

  • Aadil Mangera obo Zaheer Mangera v Road Accident Fund2019/44093 (unreported, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg, delivered 17 February 2025)
  • Abigail Muchineripi v Erina LitemweHH 195-25, HCH 2161/22
  • ABSA Bank Limited v Bond Equipment (Pretoria) (Pty) LimitedCase Number: 580/98 (Supreme Court of Appeal, judgment delivered 29 September 2000)
  • ABSA Bank Limited v Enrico Bernert[2010] ZASCA 36 (29 March 2010)
  • AB Ventures Limited v Siemens Limited(294/10) [2011] ZASCA 58 (31 March 2011)
  • Akhona Kosi v Minister of PoliceCA 17/2024 (Eastern Cape Division, Bisho)
  • AK v Minister of Police
[2022] ZACC 14
  • Alex Roux v Ryand Karel Hattingh(636/11) [2012] ZASCA 132 (27 September 2012)
  • More South Africa cases

    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
    • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97