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
Tshabalala v Moekoena (5566/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 357 (12 September 2023)
The High Court held the defendant liable for damages after finding, on a balance of probabilities, that his dog attacked the plaintiff. Quantum was postponed.
Mostert v Jones (61617/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 63 (8 March 2019)
The High Court found a dog owner negligent after a Boerboel attacked a tenant on his property, holding that he failed to check whether his wife was home before releasing the dog.
Coppejans v Bosman (34676/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1033 (15 December 2014)
The High Court held the defendant liable after finding that his dog Max, not a stray dog, bit the plaintiff and that he was negligent in letting the dog into the street.
Johannes v Williams and Others (2794/2013) [2014] ZAECPEHC 72 (4 November 2014)
The court found that the second defendant was neither the owner nor in control of the pitbull terrier responsible for the attack. There was no evidence that she assumed any responsibility for the animal or its containment. The plaintiff failed to establish that the second defendant owed a duty of care in respect of the dog or that any negligence on her part led to the escape and subsequent attack. The court distinguished the present facts from Enslin v Nhlapo and Jamneck v Wagner, noting that there was no proof of failure to maintain fences or gates, nor any explanation as to how the dog esca…
Source excerpt
Mahlase v Wakefield (A 159/2008) [2011] ZAGPPHC 166 (15 September 2011)
The court found that the respondent was negligent in failing to ensure that the gate separating the dogs from the street was properly secured. The evidence showed that the lock was not used properly and could be easily displaced, allowing the dogs access to the street. The respondent had a duty to ensure that when she opened the driveway gate, the dogs would not run out and pose a threat to the public. Her failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the dogs from escaping amounted to negligence, making her liable for the injuries sustained by the appellant. The respondent's argument that the…
Source excerpt
Hilder v Jafta and Another (15902/05) [2008] ZAKZHC 92 (21 November 2008)
The High Court held the defendants liable after finding their boerboel attacked the plaintiff, awarding damages for injuries, treatment, and general harm.
Explore more
