Kasper v Andre Kemp Boerdery (10879/2006) [2011] ZAWCHC 556 (22 November 2011)

Kasper v Andre Kemp Boerdery (10879/2006) [2011] ZAWCHC 556 (22 November 2011)

The court found that the fire was started negligently by the appellant's employee, Huma, who acted within the course and scope of his employment, even if contrary to instructions. The burning of plant material was an improper mode of performing his work, not a complete disengagement from employment duties. All damage was causally linked to the original fire, including the subsequent flare-up, based on expert evidence and probabilities. The cessions of claims by neighbouring farmers were valid, as uncontested evidence established ownership and locus standi. The late amendment of pleadings was properly granted, causing no prejudice. The statutory presumption of negligence under section 34...

Citation
[2011] ZAWCHC 556
Parties
Appellant: Bernd Rainer Kasper; Respondent: Andre Kemp Boerdery CC
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 2011
Case Number
10879/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment on Liability; Quantum Separated
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
P.A.L. Gamble, Erasmus, Ndita
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Negligence, National Veld and Forest Fire Act, Causation, Cession of Claims, Late Amendment of Pleadings
Delict Land and Property Civil Procedure Vicarious Liability Negligence National Veld and Forest Fire Act Causation Cession of Claims +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernd Rainer Kasper

Appellant

Andre Kemp Boerdery CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment on Liability; Quantum Separated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the fire started negligently by the appellant's employee?
  2. 2 Was the employee acting within the course and scope of his employment, rendering the appellant vicariously liable?
  3. 3 Were the claims of neighbouring farmers properly ceded to the respondent?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the fire was started negligently by the appellant's employee, Huma, who acted within the course and scope of his employment, even if contrary to instructions. The burning of plant material was an improper mode of performing his work, not a complete disengagement from employment duties. All damage was causally linked to the original fire, including the subsequent flare-up, based on expert evidence and probabilities. The cessions of claims by neighbouring farmers were valid, as uncontested evidence established ownership and locus standi. The late amendment of pleadings was properly granted, causing no prejudice. The statutory presumption of negligence under section 34...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo on liability stands.