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

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Delict [2018] ZAFSHC 98

Stone v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality (4976/2016)

Stone v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality (4976/2016) [2018] ZAFSHC 98 (25 May 2018)

The High Court held Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality solely liable for injuries caused by broken swimming pool steps and rejected its ‘enter at own risk’ defence.

  • Municipal Liability
  • Duty Of Care
  • Public Facility Safety
  • Exemption Clause Interpretation
  • Constitutional Obligations
  • Negligence
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2008] ZASCA 94

Masstores (Pty) Ltd v Murray & Roberts Construction Ltd. (Pty) Ltd. and Another (573/2007)

Masstores (Pty) Ltd v Murray & Roberts Construction Ltd. (Pty) Ltd. and Another (573/2007) [2008] ZASCA 94; 2008 (6) SA 654 (SCA) ; [2009] 1 All SA 146 (SCA) (12 September 2008)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a building contract clause exempted the contractor from liability for damage to the existing structure, even if negligent or grossly negligent.

  • Exemption Clause Interpretation
  • Contractual Risk Allocation
  • Negligence
  • Gross Negligence
  • Building Contracts
  • Insurance Liability
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2006] ZASCA 174

Drifters Adventure Tours CC v Hircock (602/05)

Drifters Adventure Tours CC v Hircock (602/05) [2006] ZASCA 174; [2007] 1 All SA 133 (SCA); 2007 (2) SA 83 (SCA) (29 September 2006)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the indemnity clause, when read in the context of the entire contract and the conditions on the reverse side of the booking form, did not expressly or unambiguously exclude liability for negligent driving on a public road. The reference to 'driving' in the conditions was ambiguous and, applying the contra proferentem rule, the ambiguity must be resolved against the appellant. The evidence indicated that the risks intended to be excluded related to adventure activities and not ordinary road transportation. Furthermore, statutory requirements for public lia…

  • Contractual Indemnity
  • Exemption Clause Interpretation
  • Vicarious Liability
  • Public Policy
  • Cross Border Transportation
  • Contra Proferentem
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.