Body Corporate of Dumbarton Oaks v Faiga (110/97) [1998] ZASCA 101; 1999 (1) SA 975 (SCA); [1999] 1 All SA 229 (A) (26 November 1998)

Body Corporate of Dumbarton Oaks v Faiga (110/97) [1998] ZASCA 101; 1999 (1) SA 975 (SCA); [1999] 1 All SA 229 (A) (26 November 1998)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondent failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her fall was caused by the elevator stopping 20 cm above the floor, as alleged. The evidence of Mrs Shiloane was inherently improbable and contradicted by other witnesses and technical evidence. The court below erred by relying solely on demeanour without considering the wider probabilities. As the cause of the fall was not established, the Body Corporate could not be held liable for negligence. Furthermore, the costs order against the Body Corporate was unjustified, as it was successful on the technical issue and did not attempt to shift blame to the second defendant.

Citation
[1998] ZASCA 101
Parties
Appellant: Body Corporate of Dumbarton Oaks; Respondent: Eunice Faiga
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 1998
Case Number
110/97
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Body Corporate absolved from liability; costs order against Body Corporate set aside.
Judges
Smalberger, Hoexter, Nienaber, Harms, Streicher
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Apportionment of Costs
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Duty of Care Apportionment of Costs

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Body Corporate of Dumbarton Oaks

Appellant

Eunice Faiga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Body Corporate breach its duty of care towards the respondent resulting in her injury?
  2. 2 Was the cause of the respondent's fall proven on a balance of probabilities?
  3. 3 Was the costs order against the Body Corporate justified?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondent failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her fall was caused by the elevator stopping 20 cm above the floor, as alleged. The evidence of Mrs Shiloane was inherently improbable and contradicted by other witnesses and technical evidence. The court below erred by relying solely on demeanour without considering the wider probabilities. As the cause of the fall was not established, the Body Corporate could not be held liable for negligence. Furthermore, the costs order against the Body Corporate was unjustified, as it was successful on the technical issue and did not attempt to shift blame to the second defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Body Corporate absolved from liability; costs order against Body Corporate set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • Paragraph 1 of the order of the court a quo is substituted by an order absolving the first defendant from the instance with costs.