Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Mokgomole v Sekwela (REV76/2024) [2024] ZALMPPHC 133 (18 July 2024)
High Court review of a magistrate’s recusal in a dog-bite damages case; the court held the apprehension of bias was unreasonable and set the recusal aside.
Van Wyk v Lambrechts (CA & R 12/2021) [2024] ZANCHC 12 (9 February 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal over a motor collision with a cow, finding the livestock owner negligent for not taking further steps to prevent escape.
Gerber v Adams-August (2926/2019) [2023] ZAECQBHC 64 (14 November 2023)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant was the owner of the dog, Gustav, as required for liability under the actio de pauperie. The evidence established that the dog belonged to the defendant's son, Rivaro, and was left in the care of Mikayla. The defendant had consistently advised officials of this fact, and her signing of the SPCA form did not override her denial of ownership. The court declined to develop the common law to extend ownership in pauperien claims, as the issue was not pleaded or explored in evidence. On the alternative claim of negligence, the co…
Source excerpt
Marshall v Pillay (3761/17) [2023] ZAWCHC 84 (28 April 2023)
A dog-bite claim under actio de pauperie succeeded. The court awarded general damages, unpaid medical expenses, and limited future physiotherapy costs.
Muller v De Waal and Another (15448/17) [2023] ZAWCHC 173 (24 March 2023)
High Court dog-bite liability case where the plaintiff succeeded under actio de pauperie; the defendants’ negligence and volenti defences failed.
Rautenbach v Grundlingh (55926/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 364 (18 May 2022)
High Court delict claim arising from a dog attack at the defendant’s home. The court found the defendant liable and rejected volenti non fit iniuria.
Mtokwana v Trollip (564/2015) [2021] ZAECMHC 42 (30 November 2021)
The court held the defendant liable under actio de pauperie for injuries caused by his dog, finding the plaintiff proved ownership, causation, and the dog’s contra naturam conduct.
City of Cape Town v Carelse and Others (296/2019) [2020] ZASCA 117; [2020] 4 All SA 613 (SCA); 2021 (1) SA 355 (SCA) (1 October 2020)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the City of Cape Town, as the controlling authority of the Day Camp, owed a legal duty to ensure the safety of visitors, which included taking reasonable steps to prevent the entry of dogs through all access points. The City was aware that a significant number of visitors and dogs entered through unsupervised side entrances and failed to provide signage or access control at these points. This omission was both wrongful and negligent, as the risk of harm was foreseeable and reasonable measures could have been implemented without undue financial burden. The…
Source excerpt
Van Meyeren v Cloete (636/2019) [2020] ZASCA 100; [2020] 4 All SA 358 (SCA); 2021 (1) SA 59 (SCA) (11 September 2020)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the defence to actio de pauperie should not be extended to exempt the owner from liability where harm is caused by the animal due to the negligence of a third party who does not have custody or control of the animal. The court found that the rationale for strict liability is that, as between the owner and the innocent victim, the owner should bear responsibility for harm caused by their animal. The alleged intruder's involvement was speculative and not proven on a balance of probabilities. The court reaffirmed that absence of fault is not a defence to act…
Source excerpt
Van Deventer v Botha (1523/2014) [2019] ZAFSHC 110 (4 July 2019)
The High Court held a dog owner liable under actio de pauperie after a boerboel attacked the deceased and the resulting wounds caused his death.
Explore more
