Brahman and Another v Dippenaar (211/2000) [2001] ZASCA 138; 2002 (2) SA 477 (SCA) (29 November 2001)

Brahman and Another v Dippenaar (211/2000) [2001] ZASCA 138; 2002 (2) SA 477 (SCA) (29 November 2001)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the actio de pauperie remains a valid cause of action in South African law, establishing strict liability for owners of domesticated animals that act contrary to the nature of their species. The conduct of Alicia, the Brahman cow, was found to be abnormal for cattle generally, not merely for Brahman cows, and there was no evidence of any external provocation. The respondent did not voluntarily accept the risk, as he was unaware of the presence of cattle in the kraal. The owner, Loriza Brahman, was therefore strictly liable for the respondent's injuries. The costs order against the second appellant, Naudé, was unjustified as the claim against him...

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 138
Parties
Appellant: Loriza Brahman; Appellant: Kobus Naudé; Respondent: Casper Dippenaar
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2001
Case Number
211/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except as to costs order against second appellant; costs order amended.
Judges
Olivier, Nienaber, Navsa, Cloete, Nugent
Legal Topics
Actio De Pauperie, Strict Liability, Contra Naturam Sui Generis, Owner Liability for Animals, Risk Acceptance
Delict Actio De Pauperie Strict Liability Contra Naturam Sui Generis Owner Liability for Animals Risk Acceptance

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loriza Brahman

Appellant

Kobus Naudé

Appellant

Casper Dippenaar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the actio de pauperie remains part of South African law and is applicable to the facts.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the Brahman cow, Alicia, was contra naturam sui generis, justifying strict liability of the owner.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent voluntarily accepted the risk of injury by entering the kraal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the actio de pauperie remains a valid cause of action in South African law, establishing strict liability for owners of domesticated animals that act contrary to the nature of their species. The conduct of Alicia, the Brahman cow, was found to be abnormal for cattle generally, not merely for Brahman cows, and there was no evidence of any external provocation. The respondent did not voluntarily accept the risk, as he was unaware of the presence of cattle in the kraal. The owner, Loriza Brahman, was therefore strictly liable for the respondent's injuries. The costs order against the second appellant, Naudé, was unjustified as the claim against him...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except as to costs order against second appellant; costs order amended.

Orders

  • The appellants' appeal is dismissed except as to the costs order against the second appellant.
  • The appellants are jointly and severally liable for the respondent's costs of appeal.