YACOOB J YACOOB J (Jafta J concurring): Introduction [150] This case requires us to decide whether the circumstances in which the applicant (Ms F) was assaulted and raped by an off-duty detective sergeant in the early hours one morning justify imposing vicarious liability on the Minister. 1 Mogoeng J holds that the Minister is vicariously liable. I am of the view that this conclusion is unwarranted. Hence this judgment. [151] I agree with Mogoeng J‘s judgment (main judgment) that the applications for condonation by Ms F for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal and by the Minister for the late filing of written submissions should be granted. I would also agree that the application for leave to appeal should be granted. My difficulty with the main judgment lies in the manner in which the appeal is considered and disposed of, and this judgment will address the question whether Ms F should succeed in the appeal. I have found the approach propagated by Froneman J extremely interesting but am of the view that I need not go there. The K test [152] The test to determine vicarious liability in a case like this one was authoritatively, comprehensively, clearly and helpfully laid down in the seminal judgment of this Court in the case of K.2 Unless we hold that K was wrongly decided 1 The Minister of Safety and Security. 2 K v Minister of Safety and Security [2005] ZACC 8; 2005 (6) SA 419 (CC); 2005 (9) BCLR 835 (CC) (K). 61