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
Nel v Government of South Africa and Another (3861/2016) [2021] ZAECGHC 105 (16 November 2021)
High Court judgment on veldfire damage: the court held the first defendant liable after fires spread from its farm, applying the statutory presumption of negligence.
Tartan Timbers (Pty) Limited and Others v Mondi Limited (AR457/16) [2017] ZAKZPHC 26 (23 March 2017)
Appeal over liability for fire damage dismissed; the court found no negligence by the respondent and varied costs to follow the result.
Kruger v MEC, Transport & Public Works for the Western Cape and Another (10067/2011) [2015] ZAWCHC 158 (29 October 2015)
The court found that the fire did not constitute a 'veldfire' as defined in the National Veld and Forest Fire Act, and the statutory presumption of negligence did not apply. The road reserve was not 'veld' for purposes of the Act, and imposing a duty on the defendants to maintain firebreaks along all road reserves would be unreasonable, prohibitively expensive, and contrary to legislative intent. The Act places primary responsibility for fire prevention and fighting on individual landowners, not on road authorities. The evidence established that the fire did not start in the road reserve but…
Source excerpt
Heine v Prescor 183 CC and Others (25232/2012) [2014] ZAGPJHC 341 (8 July 2014)
High Court delict claim arising from a veldfire. The court found the fire spread from the defendant’s land, applied the statutory presumption of negligence, and awarded proven damages.
Komatieland Forests (Pty) Ltd v Roux and Others (9853/08) [2011] ZAGPPHC 200 (14 October 2011)
The High Court held that a veldfire started on the defendant’s land and spread to the plaintiff’s plantation, making the defendant solely liable for the damage.
Ivaura Estates (Pty) Ltd v Member of the Executive Council, Department of Roads and Transport, Mpumalanga Province (28337/08) [2010] ZAGPPHC 8 (15 February 2010)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the fire was caused by a positive act of the defendant's employees. The evidence was largely circumstantial and did not exclude other reasonable inferences, such as the fire being started by a passer-by or other means. Although the presumption of negligence under section 34 of the National Veld and Forest Fire Act was triggered by the admission that the fire started on the defendant's property and spread to the plaintiff's, the defendant rebutted the presumption by showing that all…
Source excerpt
Meter NO and Others v Geo Parkes & Son (Pty) Ltd (590/05) [2006] ZASCA 133; [2006] SCA 161 (RSA) (30 November 2006)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Trust was negligent in failing to construct and maintain firebreaks as required by section 12(1) of the National Veld and Forest Fire Act. The statutory presumption of negligence under section 34(1) applied, and the Trust failed to discharge the onus of proving that its negligence was not causally related to the respondent's damage. The evidence did not establish vicarious liability for De Jager's acts, but the Trust's own omissions were wrongful and negligent. The respondent's alleged contributory negligence was not proved, as the evidence did not sh…
Source excerpt
Geo Parks & Son (Pty) Ltd v Meter NO and Others (6166/02) [2005] ZAWCHC 43 (13 June 2005)
A fire started on trust land during bee smoking and spread to the plaintiff's plantation. The court found negligence, rejected vicarious liability, and apportioned fault.
Gouda Boerdery BK v Transnet Ltd. (314/03) [2004] ZASCA 85; [2004] 4 All SA 500 (SCA); 2005 (5) SA 490 (SCA) (27 September 2004)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a fire in a railway reserve was not a veldfire under section 34, so the presumption of negligence did not apply.
Explore more
