Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Civil Procedure [2016] ZAGPPHC 19

Van Rooyen v Trinamic Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd and Others (84775/2014)

Van Rooyen v Trinamic Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd and Others (84775/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 19 (25 January 2016)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
84775/2014
Judge
Kganyago

The court found that the plaintiff's claim against the second defendant is based on pure economic loss and that there was no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the second defendant. The contract between the plaintiff and Riverspray defined their respective obligations, and the second defendant was only a subcontractor to Riverspray. The court held that policy considerations do not require the extension of delictual liability to the second defendant in these circumstances. The principles established in Lillicrap and Country Cloud Trading dictate a conservative approach to exten…

Source excerpt

  • Exception To Particulars Of Claim
  • Pure Economic Loss
  • Aquilian Action
  • Wrongfulness
  • Contractual Matrix
Read case analysis
Delict [2010] ZASCA 26

Viv's Tippers (Edms) Bpk v Pha Phama Staff Services (Edms) Bpk h/a Pha Phama Security (132/09)

Viv's Tippers (Edms) Bpk v Pha Phama Staff Services (Edms) Bpk h/a Pha Phama Security (132/09) [2010] ZASCA 26; 2010 (4) SA 455 (SCA) ; [2011] 1 All SA 34 (SCA) (25 March 2010)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
132/09
Judges
Lewis, Van Heerden, Cachalia, Tshiqi, Theron

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the conduct of the security guard in allowing the removal of the truck was not wrongful, and Pha Phama was not vicariously liable for the loss. The contract between Pha Phama and Lone Rock excluded liability for loss or damage, and public policy does not require the imposition of a delictual duty to third parties in these circumstances. Allowing such claims would undermine contractual arrangements and expose security providers to limitless liability. The exclusion clauses were clear and unambiguous, and the evidence did not establish negligence on the par…

Source excerpt

  • Vicarious Liability
  • Pure Economic Loss
  • Exclusion Of Liability
  • Wrongfulness
  • Contractual Matrix
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.