Ehlers NO en Andere v Graphorn NO en Andere (265/2003, 278/03) [2005] ZASCA 6; [2005] 4 All SA 601 (SCA) (15 March 2005)

Ehlers NO en Andere v Graphorn NO en Andere (265/2003, 278/03) [2005] ZASCA 6; [2005] 4 All SA 601 (SCA) (15 March 2005)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Board's representation that the buffalo were disease-free was made negligently. The Board relied solely on the origin of the buffalo and the permit system, without conducting pathological tests, despite the existence of risk factors and the catastrophic consequences of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] ZASCA 6
Parties
Appellant: Gert Leopold Ehlers NO; Appellant: Daniel Hugo Ehlers NO; Appellant: Willem Jacobus Erasmus NO; Appellant: Tangeni Boerdery Nr 2; Respondent: Hendrik Graphorn NO; Respondent: Kwazulu-Natal Natuurbewaringsraad; Respondent: Erf 1435 Sinoville (Edms) Beperk
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 March 2005
Case Number
265/03, 278/03
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Natal Provincial Division After Consolidation and Determination of Liability Issues.
Outcome
Tangeni's appeal against the Board succeeded with costs; its appeal against Sinoville was dismissed with costs. Sinoville's appeal against the Board succeeded with costs; the Board's cross-appeal was dismissed with costs.
Judges
Streicher, Brand, Cloete, Heher, Van Heerden
Legal Topics
Negligent Misrepresentation, Implied Terms, Animal Disease Control, Damages for Misrepresentation, Contractual Liability, Wildlife Auction Liability
Delict Land and Property Civil Procedure Negligent Misrepresentation Implied Terms Animal Disease Control Damages for Misrepresentation Contractual Liability +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gert Leopold Ehlers NO

Appellant

Daniel Hugo Ehlers NO

Appellant

Willem Jacobus Erasmus NO

Appellant

Tangeni Boerdery Nr 2

Appellant

Hendrik Graphorn NO

Respondent

Kwazulu-Natal Natuurbewaringsraad

Respondent

Erf 1435 Sinoville (Edms) Beperk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Natal Provincial Division After Consolidation and Determination of Liability Issues.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the representation by the Kwazulu-Natal Nature Conservation Board that the buffalo were disease-free made negligently?
  2. 2 Was there an implied term in the contract between Tangeni and Sinoville that the buffalo would be disease-free?
  3. 3 Is the Board liable in delict for damages suffered by Tangeni and Sinoville due to the misrepresentation?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Board's representation that the buffalo were disease-free was made negligently. The Board relied solely on the origin of the buffalo and the permit system, without conducting pathological tests, despite the existence of risk factors and the catastrophic consequences of disease transmission. The court held that a reasonable person in the Board's position would have made further inquiries or conducted tests before making such a representation. The Board's conduct fell short of the required standard of care. Regarding the contract between Tangeni and Sinoville, the court found no implied term that the buffalo would be disease-free, as Tangeni relied...

Court Disposition

Tangeni's appeal against the Board succeeded with costs; its appeal against Sinoville was dismissed with costs. Sinoville's appeal against the Board succeeded with costs; the Board's cross-appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • It is declared that the Board is liable to Tangeni Boerdery Nr 2 for delictual damages suffered as a result of the misrepresentation that the buffalo sold at the auction were disease-free.
  • The Board is ordered to pay Tangeni Boerdery Nr 2's costs, including the costs of two counsel and qualifying fees and expenses of expert witnesses Dr Krige, Dr De Waal, Dr Potgieter, and Mr Lambrechts.