Steenkamp v South African Broadcasting Corporation (113/2000) [2001] ZASCA 110; [2002] 2 All SA 180 (A); 2002 (1) SA 625 (SCA) (28 September 2001)

Steenkamp v South African Broadcasting Corporation (113/2000) [2001] ZASCA 110; [2002] 2 All SA 180 (A); 2002 (1) SA 625 (SCA) (28 September 2001)

A magistrate's finding in favour of a plaintiff on liability, where merits and quantum are separated under rule 29(4) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules, is not appealable because it does not dispose of any substantial portion of the relief claimed and is not an operative order. The Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed that such findings are not final judgments as required by section 83(b) of the Magistrates' Courts Act. The court also found, on the merits, that the respondent's negligence was established: the water that froze and caused the appellant's injury originated from the respondent's sprinkler system, and the respondent's employees failed to warn of the hazardous condition, making the...

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 110
Parties
Appellant: C J Steenkamp; Respondent: South African Broadcasting Corporation
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2001
Case Number
113/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Before Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
The appeal is upheld with costs. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an order that no order is made regarding these proceedings except that the appellant must pay the costs thereof.
Judges
Howie, Mpati, Froneman
Legal Topics
Appealability of Magistrates Orders, Separation of Merits and Quantum, Negligence, Vicarious Liability
Civil Procedure Delict Appealability of Magistrates Orders Separation of Merits and Quantum Negligence Vicarious 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C J Steenkamp

Appellant

South African Broadcasting Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Before Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is a magistrate's finding on liability, where merits and quantum are separated under rule 29(4), appealable?
  2. 2 Did the respondent's negligence cause the appellant's injuries?
  3. 3 Is the respondent vicariously liable for the actions of its employees?

Ratio Decidendi

A magistrate's finding in favour of a plaintiff on liability, where merits and quantum are separated under rule 29(4) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules, is not appealable because it does not dispose of any substantial portion of the relief claimed and is not an operative order. The Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed that such findings are not final judgments as required by section 83(b) of the Magistrates' Courts Act. The court also found, on the merits, that the respondent's negligence was established: the water that froze and caused the appellant's injury originated from the respondent's sprinkler system, and the respondent's employees failed to warn of the hazardous condition, making the...

Court Disposition

The appeal is upheld with costs. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an order that no order is made regarding these proceedings except that the appellant must pay the costs thereof.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'No order is made regarding these proceedings except that the appellant must pay the costs thereof.'