Anwarey v Loch Logan Waterfront (Pty) Ltd (A78/2022; 2096/2018) [2023] ZAFSHC 113 (20 April 2023)

Anwarey v Loch Logan Waterfront (Pty) Ltd (A78/2022; 2096/2018) [2023] ZAFSHC 113 (20 April 2023)

The appellant failed to present prima facie evidence that her fall was caused by the respondent's removal of floor tiles. Her own testimony confirmed that she walked only on the tiled area and did not step onto the cement strip where tiles had been removed. The presence of cement on her boot and leg was insufficient to establish causation, as it could not be reasonably inferred from the evidence that the cement strip played any role in her fall. The court found that the appellant's case was based on speculation rather than reasonable inference, and that the test for absolution from the instance was correctly applied by the court a quo. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 113
Parties
Appellant: Katija Bebe Anwarey; Respondent: Loch Logan Waterfront (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 April 2023
Case Number
A78/2022; 2096/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Absolution From the Instance Granted by Single Judge; Full Bench Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
JP Daffue, S Boonzaaier, NG Gusha
Legal Topics
Absolution From the Instance, Negligence, Duty of Care, Inferential Reasoning
Delict Civil Procedure Absolution From the Instance Negligence Duty of Care Inferential Reasoning

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katija Bebe Anwarey

Appellant

Loch Logan Waterfront (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Absolution From the Instance Granted by Single Judge; Full Bench Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant presented prima facie evidence that her fall was caused by the respondent's negligence in removing floor tiles.
  2. 2 Whether the test for absolution from the instance was correctly applied by the court a quo.
  3. 3 Whether a reasonable inference of causation and negligence can be drawn from the evidence presented.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to present prima facie evidence that her fall was caused by the respondent's removal of floor tiles. Her own testimony confirmed that she walked only on the tiled area and did not step onto the cement strip where tiles had been removed. The presence of cement on her boot and leg was insufficient to establish causation, as it could not be reasonably inferred from the evidence that the cement strip played any role in her fall. The court found that the appellant's case was based on speculation rather than reasonable inference, and that the test for absolution from the instance was correctly applied by the court a quo. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.