Schol Property and Counsulting v Gajjar (CA42/2024) [2024] ZAECMKHC 130; [2025] 1 All SA 733 (ECG) (3 December 2024)

Schol Property and Counsulting v Gajjar (CA42/2024) [2024] ZAECMKHC 130; [2025] 1 All SA 733 (ECG) (3 December 2024)

The court found that the defendant, as owner of the shopping mall, owed a duty of care to members of the public to ensure their safety. The elevation between paving surfaces created a foreseeable risk of harm, and the defendant's only precaution—a white line—was not a sufficient warning of the hazard. The expert evidence presented by the defendant was not supported by factual testimony from the defendant or its employees, and did not establish that the white line was an adequate warning. The court held that reasonable steps, such as placing warning signs, could and should have been taken to alert patrons to the danger. The defendant's failure to do so constituted negligence and was...

Citation
[2024] ZAECMKHC 130
Parties
Appellant: Schol Property and Consulting; Respondent: Kawshlia Gajjar
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 December 2024
Case Number
CA42/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court on Merits; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; trial court's finding of liability against the defendant upheld.
Judges
B R Tokota, D O Potgieter, M W Nobatana
Legal Topics
Premises Liability, Negligence, Duty of Care, Personal Injury, Causation, Slip and Trip
Delict Land and Property Premises Liability Negligence Duty of Care Personal Injury Causation Slip and Trip

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Schol Property and Consulting

Appellant

Kawshlia Gajjar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court on Merits; Quantum Separated Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defendant take sufficient reasonable precautions to prevent the danger created by uneven floors in the shopping mall.
  2. 2 Was the demarcation of the elevation by a white line a sufficient warning to patrons of the hazard.
  3. 3 Did the defendant owe a duty of care to members of the public entering the mall to ensure their safety.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant, as owner of the shopping mall, owed a duty of care to members of the public to ensure their safety. The elevation between paving surfaces created a foreseeable risk of harm, and the defendant's only precaution—a white line—was not a sufficient warning of the hazard. The expert evidence presented by the defendant was not supported by factual testimony from the defendant or its employees, and did not establish that the white line was an adequate warning. The court held that reasonable steps, such as placing warning signs, could and should have been taken to alert patrons to the danger. The defendant's failure to do so constituted negligence and was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; trial court's finding of liability against the defendant upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay costs on scale B as contemplated in Rule 69(7), including costs of the application for leave to appeal.