A.B. v Emerald Safari Resort (Pty) Ltd (2019/21688) [2025] ZAGPJHC 592 (26 May 2025)

A.B. v Emerald Safari Resort (Pty) Ltd (2019/21688) [2025] ZAGPJHC 592 (26 May 2025)

The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving what caused her fall and resultant injuries. Her evidence was contradictory, with her particulars of claim alleging a fall over a wooden beam, while her testimony suggested she tripped over an unidentified item. Neither the plaintiff nor her witness could identify the cause of the fall, and the evidence did not establish that the defendant was negligent or that any act or omission by the defendant caused the incident. The court found that to hold the defendant liable would require speculation, which is impermissible. There was no evidence upon which a reasonable court could find for the plaintiff on liability. Accordingly, absolution...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 592
Parties
Plaintiff: A.B.; Defendant: Emerald Safari Resort (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2025
Case Number
2019/21688
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Absolution From the Instance After Plaintiff's Case
Outcome
Absolution from the instance granted with costs on scale B. Merits and quantum separated; quantum postponed sine die.
Judges
Mfenyana
Legal Topics
Negligence, Premises Liability, Onus of Proof, Absolution From the Instance
Delict Negligence Premises Liability Onus of Proof Absolution From the Instance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.B.

Plaintiff

Emerald Safari Resort (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Absolution From the Instance After Plaintiff's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to ensure the safety of its premises for patrons.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proving the cause of her fall and resultant injuries.
  3. 3 Whether there is sufficient evidence for the court to find for the plaintiff on liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving what caused her fall and resultant injuries. Her evidence was contradictory, with her particulars of claim alleging a fall over a wooden beam, while her testimony suggested she tripped over an unidentified item. Neither the plaintiff nor her witness could identify the cause of the fall, and the evidence did not establish that the defendant was negligent or that any act or omission by the defendant caused the incident. The court found that to hold the defendant liable would require speculation, which is impermissible. There was no evidence upon which a reasonable court could find for the plaintiff on liability. Accordingly, absolution...

Court Disposition

Absolution from the instance granted with costs on scale B. Merits and quantum separated; quantum postponed sine die.

Orders

  • Merits and quantum are separated, and the issue of quantum is postponed sine die.
  • Absolution from the instance is granted with costs on scale B.