South Africa Case Law

City of Cape Town v Cell C Limited and Others (20689/2018)

City of Cape Town v Cell C Limited and Others (20689/2018) [2025] ZAWCHC 246 (10 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20689/2018

Judge

Slingers

The court found that the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of the facts necessary to institute its claim against the first defendant on 18 November 2015, as its pleaded case was based on strict liability and did not depend on identifying the specific wrongdoer. The plaintiff could have acquired the requisite knowledge to institute proceedings against the second defendant by making reasonable inquiries at the time of the incident. The failure to make basic inquiries constituted a lack of reasonable care, and the plaintiff is deemed to have had constructive knowledge of the facts from the date…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Strict Liability
• Constructive Knowledge
• Vicarious Liability
• Contractual Claim
• Reasonable Care

Pieterse and Others v Organic Synthesis (Pty) Ltd and Another (61861/2017)

Pieterse and Others v Organic Synthesis (Pty) Ltd and Another (61861/2017) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1195 (14 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

61861/2017

Judge

E M Kubushi

The court held that section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act does not require plaintiffs to exhaust alternative statutory remedies before approaching the court for damages based on personal injury caused by defective goods. The remedies listed in section 69(a)-(c) are not appropriate or sufficient for claims of this nature, as only the court is empowered under section 61(6) to adjudicate such claims and determine damages. The court found that the statutory framework does not create a mandatory hierarchy of remedies and that the right of access to courts should not be excluded by procedural r…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Product Liability
• Personal Injury
• Exhaustion Of Remedies
• Strict Liability

Muller v De Waal and Another (15448/17)

Muller v De Waal and Another (15448/17) [2023] ZAWCHC 173 (24 March 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15448/17

Judge

Fortuin

High Court dog-bite liability case where the plaintiff succeeded under actio de pauperie; the defendants’ negligence and volenti defences failed.

• Actio De Pauperie
• Strict Liability
• Negligence
• Volenti Non Fit Iniuria
• Novus Actus Interveniens
• Actio-de-pauperie

Mtokwana v Trollip (564/2015)

Mtokwana v Trollip (564/2015) [2021] ZAECMHC 42 (30 November 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

564/2015

Judge

Nhlangulela

The court held the defendant liable under actio de pauperie for injuries caused by his dog, finding the plaintiff proved ownership, causation, and the dog’s contra naturam conduct.

• Actio De Pauperie
• Liability For Domesticated Animals
• Strict Liability
• Assessment Of Evidence
• Damages
• Actio-de-pauperie

C B v Absa Bank Limited and Others (25718/2018)

C B v Absa Bank Limited and Others (25718/2018) [2020] ZAGPJHC 230 (11 September 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

25718/2018

Judge

Bhoola

The court found that the default judgment against the applicant was granted on materially incorrect facts, namely that she was still married in community of property and had personally stood surety, when in fact she had only consented to her husband's suretyship and the joint estate had been dissolved upon divorce. The applicant was not properly served with the summons or notices, and the attachment of her bank accounts was effected without notice or judicial authority, rendering it wrongful and unlawful. The court held that judicial oversight is required for execution against property, inclu…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Wrongful Attachment
• Judicial Oversight
• Matrimonial Property Act Liability
• General Damages
• Strict Liability

CB v ABSA Bank Limited and Others (25718/2018)

CB v ABSA Bank Limited and Others (25718/2018) [2020] ZAGPJHC 303 (11 September 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

25718/2018

Judge

U. Bhoola

The court found that the default judgment against the applicant was erroneously granted, as the pleadings incorrectly stated she was still married in community of property and personally liable for the close corporation's debts, when in fact she had only consented to her husband binding the joint estate and had been released from liability upon divorce. The applicant did not receive proper notice of the proceedings or the attachment order, rendering the subsequent attachment of her bank accounts invalid and wrongful. The court held that judicial oversight is constitutionally required for exec…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Wrongful Attachment
• Judicial Oversight
• Strict Liability
• General Damages
• Matrimonial Property Act

Van Meyeren v Cloete (636/2019)

Van Meyeren v Cloete (636/2019) [2020] ZASCA 100; [2020] 4 All SA 358 (SCA); 2021 (1) SA 59 (SCA) (11 September 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

636/2019

Judges

Cachalia, Wallis, Mocumie, Ledwaba, Weiner

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the defence to actio de pauperie should not be extended to exempt the owner from liability where harm is caused by the animal due to the negligence of a third party who does not have custody or control of the animal. The court found that the rationale for strict liability is that, as between the owner and the innocent victim, the owner should bear responsibility for harm caused by their animal. The alleged intruder's involvement was speculative and not proven on a balance of probabilities. The court reaffirmed that absence of fault is not a defence to act…

Source excerpt

• Actio De Pauperie
• Strict Liability
• Defences To Animal Owner Liability
• Common Law Development
• Negligence Of Third Party

Petropulos and Another v Dias (1055/2018)

Petropulos and Another v Dias (1055/2018) [2020] ZASCA 53; [2020] 3 All SA 358 (SCA); 2020 (5) SA 63 (SCA) (21 May 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1055/2018

Judges

Ponnan, Saldulker, Van Der Merwe, Makgoka, Mokgohloa

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the duty of lateral support between contiguous properties in South African law extends to both land and buildings, rejecting the English law restriction to land in its natural state. The court found that the excavation works on the first appellant's property breached this duty, causing the slope to mobilise and resulting in substantial damage to the respondent's property. The court accepted the evidence of the respondent's expert, which established a direct causal link between the excavation and the damage. Liability for deprivation of lateral support is…

Source excerpt

• Lateral Support
• Strict Liability
• Causation
• Subsidence
• Neighbour Law
• Remoteness Of Damage

Iceland Indistrial Projects (Pty) Ltd v Matthews (53514/2011)

Iceland Indistrial Projects (Pty) Ltd v Matthews (53514/2011) [2019] ZAGPPHC 441 (15 August 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

53514/2011

Judge

Strydom

The court held the defendant liable for the death of 769 parrots, finding that a prior court order placed the risk of loss on him.

• Strict Liability
• Quantum Of Damages
• Actio Ad Exhibendum
• Court Order Risk Allocation
• Strict-liability
• Damages

S v Phuzi (R254/2018)

S v Phuzi (R254/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 213; 2019 (2) SACR 648 (FB) (28 December 2018)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R254/2018

Judges

Musi, Naidoo, Reinders

Section 59(4) of the National Road Traffic Act does not create strict liability. Fault in the form of either intention (dolus) or negligence (culpa) is required for a conviction. The seriousness of the offence and the potential for imprisonment demand strict adherence to procedural safeguards. When an accused pleads guilty under section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the magistrate must ensure that all elements of the offence are properly admitted, including the recorded speed, the proper functioning of the speed measuring device, and the competence of the traffic officer. The absen…

Source excerpt

• National Road Traffic Act
• Strict Liability
• Mens Rea
• Negligence
• Speeding Offences
• Criminal Procedure