South Africa Case Law

Old Mutual Unit Trust Managers Limited v Living Hands (Pty) Ltd and Others (18/2023)

Old Mutual Unit Trust Managers Limited v Living Hands (Pty) Ltd and Others (18/2023) [2024] ZASCA 75; [2024] 3 All SA 407 (SCA); 2024 (6) SA 85 (SCA) (16 May 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

18/2023

Judges

Schippers, Nicholls, Goosen

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that OMUT did not owe a legal duty to the Trust or its beneficiaries beyond its contractual obligations to the first plaintiff. OMUT acted on a duly authorised instruction and there was no evidence or reasonable possibility that it could have foreseen the misappropriation of funds by the directors of the first plaintiff. The statutory and constitutional provisions relied upon by the plaintiffs did not create a right of action against OMUT, nor did they contemplate the type of harm suffered. The loss resulted from the criminal conduct of the first plaintiff's d…

Source excerpt

• Pure Economic Loss
• Negligent Omission
• Collective Investment Schemes Control Act
• Trust Property Control Act
• Causation
• Wrongfulness

Hawarden v Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc (13849/2020)

Hawarden v Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc (13849/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 14; [2023] 1 All SA 675 (GJ); 2023 (4) SA 152 (GJ) (16 January 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

13849/2020

Judge

Mudau

The court held a conveyancer liable in delict for pure economic loss after emailing bank details that were intercepted in a business email compromise fraud.

• Pure Economic Loss
• Duty Of Care
• Business Email Compromise
• Conveyancing Liability
• Negligent Omission
• Cyber Fraud

Sitali v Minister of Police (1798/2017)

Sitali v Minister of Police (1798/2017) [2022] ZAECMHC 20 (2 August 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

1798/2017

Judge

Z M Nhlangulela

The court found that the police had a clear legal and constitutional duty to protect the plaintiff and his family from foreseeable harm, especially after being warned of imminent threats. The police failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the attack, focusing instead on arresting the plaintiff for possession of a firearm and neglecting the safety of his wife, children, and property. The evidence of the police officers was found to be unreliable and improbable, while the plaintiff's version was credible. The causal link between the police's negligent omissions and the loss suffered was esta…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Negligent Omission
• Duty Of Care
• Constitutional Rights
• Causation
• Police Liability

Ngobeni v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (A5046/2021)

Ngobeni v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (A5046/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 399 (8 June 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5046/2021

Judges

Mahomed, Wepener, Dippenaar

The court found that the respondent, as a public carrier, owed a legal duty to ensure the safety of its passengers, which included keeping train doors closed while the train was in motion and preventing overcrowding. The appellant's evidence that she was injured after falling out of a moving train with open doors was uncontroverted. The respondent failed to lead any evidence to challenge her version and relied solely on cross-examination, which did not establish a credible alternative account. The court held that the respondent's omission to close the doors and prevent overcrowding constitute…

Source excerpt

• Public Carrier Liability
• Negligent Omission
• Open Train Doors
• Overcrowding
• Duty Of Care
• Causation

Mycsa Mulder Y Co Import Export SA v Transnet SOC Ltd (A66/2014)

Mycsa Mulder Y Co Import Export SA v Transnet SOC Ltd (A66/2014) [2021] ZAKZDHC 36 (15 October 2021)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

A66/2014

Judge

Lopes

Admiralty delict claim over missing crane parts failed because Transnet owed no proven duty of care to the owner and negligence was not established.

• Duty Of Care
• Negligent Omission
• Virtual State Warehouse
• Public Policy Liability
• Admiralty-law
• Delict

Matalen v Ikamva Signs CC and Another (22343/2010)

Matalen v Ikamva Signs CC and Another (22343/2010) [2020] ZAWCHC 165 (20 November 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

22343/2010

Judge

E D Wille

The High Court granted absolution from the instance to the second defendant in a delict claim arising from a falling signage incident.

• Negligent Omission
• Wrongfulness
• Causation
• Res Ipsa Loquitur
• Absolution From The Instance
• Delict

City of Cape Town v Carelse and Others (296/2019)

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)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

296/2019

Judges

Navsa, Mocumie, Dlodlo, Eksteen, Poyo-Dlwati

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

• Municipal Liability
• Negligent Omission
• Public Facility Safety
• Actio De Pauperie
• Access Control
• Wrongfulness

Blue Mountain Productions CC and Another v Minister of Police (19714/2014)

Blue Mountain Productions CC and Another v Minister of Police (19714/2014) [2020] ZAWCHC 104; [2020] 4 All SA 401 (WCC) (7 September 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19714/2014

Judge

Wille

The court found that the protest action was unprecedented, unlawful, and spread across a vast area, severely stretching police resources. The police's primary duty was to protect life, not property, and they were not responsible for guarding individual premises unless designated as key-points. The plaintiffs were indemnified for their losses by riot insurance, and the evidence did not establish that the police's conduct or omission was the factual or legal cause of the plaintiffs' losses. The destruction of the plaintiffs' properties occurred during sporadic criminal activity, not in the pres…

Source excerpt

• Negligent Omission
• Duty Of Care
• Vicarious Liability
• Pure Economic Loss
• Wrongfulness
• Riot And Unrest Insurance

Nohour and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (1139/2018)

Nohour and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (1139/2018) [2020] ZASCA 27; 2020 (2) SACR 229 (SCA) (26 March 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1139/2018

Judges

Petse, Van der Merwe, Dlodlo

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed a claim for damages arising from an alleged wrongful conviction, holding that causation was not proved.

• Wrongful Conviction
• Causation
• Animus Iniuriandi
• Negligent Omission
• Damages
• Ex Turpi Causa

MEC Department Police Roads & Transport, FS Province v Roberts and Another (A116-2019)

MEC Department Police Roads & Transport, FS Province v Roberts and Another (A116-2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 23; 2020 (3) SA 478 (FB) (13 February 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A116/2019

Judges

C.J. Musi, C. Reinders, P.J. Loubser

The appeal succeeded because the respondents failed to prove that vegetation control caused the kudu collision, and judicial notice of kudu behavior was impermissible.

• Negligent Omission
• Factual Causation
• Judicial Notice
• Duty Of Care
• Road Maintenance
• Factual-causation