MOGOENG J to the distinction they drew between the role of the commission and the omission and the significance they attach to the fact of being on or off duty. Sufficiently close connection [74] The Minister‘s vicarious liability will arise only if a sufficiently close connection exists between the policeman‘s delictual conduct and his employment. The relevant part of the K test raises a question which is central to the determination of vicarious liability in cases of this kind, and— ―[t]hat question is whether, even though the acts done have been done solely for the purpose of the employee, there is nevertheless a sufficiently close link between the employee‘s acts for his own interests and the purposes and the business of the employer.‖50 [75] This question must be answered by weighing the normative factors that justify the imposition of liability on the policeman‘s employer against those pointing the other way. [76] Unlike before, when the test in deviation cases was whether the employee acted within the course and scope of employment, the focus now is whether— ―the connection between the conduct of the policemen and their employment was sufficiently close to render the respondent liable.‖51 50 K above n 8 at para 32. 51 Id at para 53. 29