Brits v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd and Another (Leave to Appeal) (911/2016) [2025] ZANCHC 48 (27 April 2025)

Brits v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd and Another (Leave to Appeal) (911/2016) [2025] ZANCHC 48 (27 April 2025)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving that the floor was wet or cleaned with a wet or damp mop at the time of her fall, and thus failed to prove negligence on the part of the defendants. The evidence presented by the plaintiff and her witness did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendants were negligent. The court held that the probabilities did not favour the plaintiff's case over the defendants', and that the trial court's findings were neither plainly wrong nor seriously flawed. Applying the stringent threshold for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, the court concluded that there are no reasonable...

Citation
[2025] ZANCHC 48
Parties
Plaintiff: Anna Maria Brits; Defendant: Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Gerhard Potgieter Maintenance Services CC t/a Mr Clean
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 April 2025
Case Number
911/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Delictual Damages Claim
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Tonder
Legal Topics
Negligence, Onus of Proof, Leave to Appeal, Absolution From the Instance
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Onus of Proof Leave to Appeal 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anna Maria Brits

Plaintiff

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Gerhard Potgieter Maintenance Services CC t/a Mr Clean

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Delictual Damages Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has discharged the onus of proving negligence on the part of the defendants.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence supports a finding that the plaintiff slipped due to a wet or damp floor.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in its evaluation of the probabilities and credibility of witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving that the floor was wet or cleaned with a wet or damp mop at the time of her fall, and thus failed to prove negligence on the part of the defendants. The evidence presented by the plaintiff and her witness did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendants were negligent. The court held that the probabilities did not favour the plaintiff's case over the defendants', and that the trial court's findings were neither plainly wrong nor seriously flawed. Applying the stringent threshold for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, the court concluded that there are no reasonable...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.