Huber v Mafikeng Local Municipality and Another (386/02) [2005] ZANWHC 95 (2 November 2005)

Huber v Mafikeng Local Municipality and Another (386/02) [2005] ZANWHC 95 (2 November 2005)

The court found that although the grand stand was in a dilapidated state and the defendants were aware of its condition, the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that his fall was caused by the missing or broken plank as pleaded. The evidence indicated that the plaintiff was under the influence of liquor and that his loss of balance could not be conclusively attributed to the alleged defect in the grand stand. The testimony of Kim Farrell was accepted as credible, showing that the plaintiff was off balance due to intoxication before the fall. The court held that the plaintiff did not prove negligence on the part of the defendants and therefore...

Citation
[2005] ZANWHC 95
Parties
Plaintiff: Nobert Bernard Huber; Defendant: Mafikeng Local Municipality; Defendant: Mafikeng Rugby Club
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 November 2005
Case Number
386/02
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Absolution from the instance with costs granted in favour of the defendants.
Judges
Tlhapi
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Occupier Liability, Lease Agreement Obligations
Delict Land and Property Negligence Duty of Care Occupier Liability Lease Agreement Obligations

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nobert Bernard Huber

Plaintiff

Mafikeng Local Municipality

Defendant

Mafikeng Rugby Club

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were negligent in maintaining the grand stand, resulting in the plaintiff's injury.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in causing his own injury.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the grand stand was in a dilapidated state and the defendants were aware of its condition, the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that his fall was caused by the missing or broken plank as pleaded. The evidence indicated that the plaintiff was under the influence of liquor and that his loss of balance could not be conclusively attributed to the alleged defect in the grand stand. The testimony of Kim Farrell was accepted as credible, showing that the plaintiff was off balance due to intoxication before the fall. The court held that the plaintiff did not prove negligence on the part of the defendants and therefore...

Court Disposition

Absolution from the instance with costs granted in favour of the defendants.

Orders

  • Absolution from the instance is granted.
  • Plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of suit.