Roux v Vaalplaas Caledon (Edms) Bpk (538/92) [1994] ZASCA 47 (29 March 1994)

Roux v Vaalplaas Caledon (Edms) Bpk (538/92) [1994] ZASCA 47 (29 March 1994)

The majority held that the respondent proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant's dog was responsible for the attacks on the respondent's livestock on the second, third, and fourth occasions, but not on the first. Direct evidence, supported by circumstantial evidence and expert testimony, established the appellant's liability for damages arising from the latter three incidents. The identification of the dog, its behaviour, and the cessation of attacks after its death were decisive. The respondent failed to discharge the onus regarding the first incident, as the evidence was equally consistent with other dogs being responsible. The quantification of damages for the proven...

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 47
Parties
Appellant: Jan Daniël Roux; Respondent: Vaalplaas Caledon (Edms) Bpk
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 1994
Case Number
538/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape Provincial Division, Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part; damages reduced to exclude the first incident; costs awarded to appellant for appeal.
Judges
Joubert, Kumleben, Nienaber, Van Coller, Mahomed
Legal Topics
Liability for Damage Caused by Animals, Onus of Proof, Quantification of Damages
Delict Land and Property Liability for Damage Caused by Animals Onus of Proof Quantification of Damages

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Daniël Roux

Appellant

Vaalplaas Caledon (Edms) Bpk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape Provincial Division, Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent discharged the onus of proving that the appellant's dog caused the damage to livestock on each occasion.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is liable for damages suffered by the respondent on all four occasions or only some.
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of damages claimed by the respondent was properly established.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the respondent proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant's dog was responsible for the attacks on the respondent's livestock on the second, third, and fourth occasions, but not on the first. Direct evidence, supported by circumstantial evidence and expert testimony, established the appellant's liability for damages arising from the latter three incidents. The identification of the dog, its behaviour, and the cessation of attacks after its death were decisive. The respondent failed to discharge the onus regarding the first incident, as the evidence was equally consistent with other dogs being responsible. The quantification of damages for the proven...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part; damages reduced to exclude the first incident; costs awarded to appellant for appeal.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the Magistrate is set aside and substituted with judgment in favour of the plaintiff for R7,614.57 (in terms of paragraphs 4.4, 5.4, and 6.4 of the amended summons).