Ngwenya vs Accelerate Property Fund (2022/13159) [2024] ZAGPJHC 880 (16 September 2024)

Ngwenya vs Accelerate Property Fund (2022/13159) [2024] ZAGPJHC 880 (16 September 2024)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the metal skirting was loose, protruding, or constituted a foreseeable risk prior to her fall. The video evidence did not show any visible defect before the incident, and the defendant's witness confirmed regular inspections with no abnormalities noted. The disclaimer notices were prominently displayed, clear, and of sufficient size to draw the attention of any reasonable person, including the plaintiff, who worked at the premises for two years. The court held that the plaintiff assented to the terms of the disclaimers, which excluded liability for injuries. There was no evidence of negligence or...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 880
Parties
Plaintiff: Nonhlanhla Ngwenya; Defendant: Accelerate Property Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 2024
Case Number
2022/13159
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs on scale A.
Judges
Mudau
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Duty of Care, Disclaimer Notices, Negligence, Premises Liability
Delict Land and Property Personal Injury Duty of Care Disclaimer Notices Negligence Premises Liability

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nonhlanhla Ngwenya

Plaintiff

Accelerate Property Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant owed and breached a duty of care to the plaintiff regarding the alleged loose metal skirting.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to prevent foreseeable harm to the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the disclaimer notices absolved the defendant from liability for the plaintiff's injury.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the metal skirting was loose, protruding, or constituted a foreseeable risk prior to her fall. The video evidence did not show any visible defect before the incident, and the defendant's witness confirmed regular inspections with no abnormalities noted. The disclaimer notices were prominently displayed, clear, and of sufficient size to draw the attention of any reasonable person, including the plaintiff, who worked at the premises for two years. The court held that the plaintiff assented to the terms of the disclaimers, which excluded liability for injuries. There was no evidence of negligence or...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs on scale A.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs on scale A.