MOGOENG J [49] The Rabie formulation of the test provided the basis for the test laid down by this Court in K as follows: ―The approach makes it clear that there are two questions to be asked. The first is whether the wrongful acts were done solely for the purposes of the employee. This question requires a subjective consideration of the employee‘s state of mind and is a purely factual question. Even if it is answered in the affirmative, however, the employer may nevertheless be liable vicariously if the second question, an objective one, is answered affirmatively. That 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. This question does not raise purely factual questions, but mixed questions of fact and law. The questions of law it raises relate to what is ‗sufficiently close‘ to give rise to vicarious liability. It is in answering this question that a court should consider the need to give effect to the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.‖33 (Footnote omitted.) [50] As the Court stated in K, the objective portion of the two-stage test requires a court to ask whether there is a sufficiently close connection between the wrongful conduct and the wrongdoer‘s employment.34 This requires ―explicit recognition of the normative content‖ of this stage of the test.35 The pivotal enquiry is therefore whether ―there was a close connection between the wrongful conduct of the policemen and the nature of their employment.‖36 That is the question that must be asked in determining the state‘s vicarious liability in this matter. 33 K above n 8 at para 32. 34 Id at para 44. 35 Id. 36 Id at para 57. 19