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
South African Post Office Soc Limited v Viviers (CA 216/2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 113 (13 December 2022)
The High Court upheld an appeal and held that the Post Office owed no legal duty to a plaintiff injured when he took a shortcut over property to reach a bar.
Memorable Order of Tin Hats v Kenneth Paul Els (488/2021) [2022] ZASCA 99 (22 June 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a second handrail omission was not shown to have caused the respondent’s fall, so the appeal succeeded.
Calitz and Others v Minister of Police (62934/2014) [2021] ZAGPPHC 733 (29 October 2021)
The High Court held that SAPS members omitted to search a detainee after a civilian arrest, but the omission was not negligent and did not cause his suicide.
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services v Kitcher and Another (874/2019) [2021] ZANCHC 12 (22 January 2021)
The court found that the Minister, as the party in control of the premises and employer of both Mr Kitcher and Mr Sebogo, was aware of the repeated danger posed by Mr Sebogo's dogs. Despite prior incidents and warnings, the Minister failed to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm, such as ordering the removal of the dogs after the first attack. The omission was wrongful and negligent under delictual principles, given the employment relationship, the Minister's authority, and the constitutional duty to protect life and security. The legal convictions of the community, constitutiona…
Source excerpt
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services v Kitcher and Another (874/2019) [2021] ZANCHC 7 (22 January 2021)
The court held that the Minister, as the party in control of the correctional facility and employer of both the dog owner and the victim, was aware of the repeated danger posed by Mr Sebogo's dogs. Despite prior warnings and incidents, the Minister failed to enforce removal or confinement of the dogs, thereby breaching a legal duty to prevent foreseeable harm to residents and visitors. The omission was both wrongful and negligent under delictual principles, as the Minister could reasonably have foreseen the risk and taken simple, cost-effective steps to eliminate it. The legal convictions of…
Source excerpt
Nengwekhulu and Others v Minister of Police (428/2016) [2019] ZALMPTHC 2 (19 September 2019)
The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove he asked police to protect his business, Talifhani, and dismissed his damages claim.
Van Zyl v Siyancuma Municipality (655/2016) [2019] ZANCHC 19 (29 March 2019)
The High Court held Siyancuma Municipality liable for injuries suffered by an elderly plaintiff who fell on stairs after the ramp entrance was unusable.
Telesure Group Services v Eastern Cape Development Corporation (1088/2015) [2015] ZAECGHC 142 (24 November 2015)
The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim, when interpreted in the context of the applicable legal principles, were not excipiable. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, as owner of the premises, failed to maintain adequate fire extinguishing equipment, which was a duty imposed by the National Building Regulations. The court found that evidence could be led to establish foreseeability of harm and negligence, and that the pleadings were sufficient to disclose a cause of action. The exception was therefore dismissed.
Source excerpt
Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Mashongwa (966/2013) [2014] ZASCA 202 (28 November 2014)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that PRASA was not liable for a commuter’s robbery and assault on a train, finding no negligence or causal link.
Green v C-Way Computers CC (15639/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 219 (13 March 2014)
The court found that the defendant did not act wrongfully in failing to ensure the manhole was covered at all times. The risk that someone would fall into the manhole was remote, given the building's vacant and derelict state, its location, and the lack of public access. The foreseeability of harm was limited, and the cost and practicality of constant preventative measures were disproportionate to the risk. The law does not require an owner to guard such premises continuously when the probability of harm is minimal. Accordingly, the defendant was not under a legal duty to act positively in th…
Source excerpt
Explore more
