Ngobese v Ferro Eleganzie (PTY) LTD (2012/1420) [2018] ZAGPPHC 764 (20 September 2018)

Ngobese v Ferro Eleganzie (PTY) LTD (2012/1420) [2018] ZAGPPHC 764 (20 September 2018)

The court found the plaintiff and her witnesses to be credible and reliable, with their versions corroborated by independent eyewitnesses and even by the defendant's own witness, Mr Aphane, who confirmed the scaffolding was in the passage used by shoppers. The defendant failed to implement basic safety measures, such as warning signs and barrier tape, and did not take reasonable steps to prevent harm to the public. The defendant's witnesses were either absent from the scene or relied on hearsay, and their version was not supported by objective facts. The court held that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and the public, breached that duty by failing to cordon off the area...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 764
Parties
Plaintiff: Ngobese, Thembi Margaret; Defendant: Ferro Eleganzie (PTY) LTD
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 September 2018
Case Number
2012/1420
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant held 100% liable for proven damages.
Judges
Mudau
Legal Topics
Negligence, Personal Injury, Vicarious Liability, Duty of Care
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Personal Injury Vicarious Liability Duty of Care

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ngobese, Thembi Margaret

Plaintiff

Ferro Eleganzie (PTY) LTD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's employees were negligent in the erection and management of scaffolding at the shopping mall.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is vicariously liable for the harm caused to the plaintiff by its employees.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff contributed to her own injuries through negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff and her witnesses to be credible and reliable, with their versions corroborated by independent eyewitnesses and even by the defendant's own witness, Mr Aphane, who confirmed the scaffolding was in the passage used by shoppers. The defendant failed to implement basic safety measures, such as warning signs and barrier tape, and did not take reasonable steps to prevent harm to the public. The defendant's witnesses were either absent from the scene or relied on hearsay, and their version was not supported by objective facts. The court held that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and the public, breached that duty by failing to cordon off the area...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant held 100% liable for proven damages.

Orders

  • The defendant is 100% liable for the plaintiff's proven damages.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the trial on the aspect of merits.