Ramafamba v Score Supermarkets (Pty) Ltd (517/2012) [2012] ZASCA 162 (19 November 2012)

Ramafamba v Score Supermarkets (Pty) Ltd (517/2012) [2012] ZASCA 162 (19 November 2012)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant did not discharge the onus of proving that the respondents negligently caused her injuries. The evidence presented was inadequate and inconsistent, with no credible proof of how the fall occurred or that the respondents were responsible for any dangerous condition in the store. The appellant's version changed during the trial, and no witnesses corroborated her account. The respondents' evidence was found credible, and there was no reason for loose shelves to be left on the floor. The manager's assistance after the incident was not an admission of liability. Consequently, the high court should have granted absolution from the instance,...

Citation
[2012] ZASCA 162
Parties
Appellant: Maria Shumani Ramafamba; Respondent: Score Supermarkets (Trading) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Eric Nemaname
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 2012
Case Number
517/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; cross appeal upheld with costs; absolution from the instance granted.
Judges
Brand, Lewis, Petse, Southwood, Saldulker
Legal Topics
Negligence, Absolution From the Instance, Onus of Proof, Personal Injury
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Absolution From the Instance Onus of Proof Personal Injury

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Shumani Ramafamba

Appellant

Score Supermarkets (Trading) (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Eric Nemaname

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the appellant discharge the onus of proving that the respondents negligently caused her injury?
  2. 2 Was the evidence sufficient to establish the cause of the appellant's fall and the respondents' responsibility?
  3. 3 Should absolution from the instance have been granted by the high court?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant did not discharge the onus of proving that the respondents negligently caused her injuries. The evidence presented was inadequate and inconsistent, with no credible proof of how the fall occurred or that the respondents were responsible for any dangerous condition in the store. The appellant's version changed during the trial, and no witnesses corroborated her account. The respondents' evidence was found credible, and there was no reason for loose shelves to be left on the floor. The manager's assistance after the incident was not an admission of liability. Consequently, the high court should have granted absolution from the instance,...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; cross appeal upheld with costs; absolution from the instance granted.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The cross appeal is upheld with costs.