Johannes Diederik Le Roux N O and Another v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (239/2024) [2025] ZASCA 122 (2 September 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: Johannes Diederik Le Roux NO and Another v The Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality
Citation: (Case no 239/2024) [2025] ZASCA 122
Date: 2 September 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significant implications regarding municipal liability in delictual claims, particularly in the context of public safety and the duty of care owed by municipalities to their residents. The judgment addresses the legal principles of wrongfulness, negligence, and causation, and clarifies the standards required for establishing liability in cases involving public infrastructure.

Cases Cited

• Trustees, Two Oceans Aquarium Trust v Kantey & Templer (Pty) Ltd 2006 (3) SA 138 (SCA)
• Government of the Republic of South Africa v Basdeo and Another 1996 (1) SA 355 (A)
• Knop v Johannesburg City Council 1995 (2) SA 1 (A)
• Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden 2002 (6) SA 431 (SCA)
• Van Vuuren v eThekwini Municipality [2017] ZASCA 124; 2018 (1) SA 189 (SCA)
• Stedall and another v Aspeling and another [2017] ZASCA 172; 2018 (2) SA 75 (SCA)

Legislation Cited

• Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, ss 152 and 156

Rules of Court Cited

• None cited in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeal addressed the tragic drowning of a minor child in an uncovered stormwater drain, determining the liability of the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality. The court found that the municipality had a duty of care to maintain public infrastructure and that its failure to act constituted both wrongfulness and negligence, leading to the child's death.

Key Issues

The key legal issues included the determination of: - Whether the municipality was delictually liable for the child's drowning. - The elements of wrongfulness and causation in the context of municipal liability. - The credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence presented.

Held

The court held that the municipality was liable for the damages resulting from the drowning of the minor child. It overturned the full court's decision, reinstating the trial court's finding of liability and ordering the municipality to pay the appellants' costs.

THE FACTS

On 13 September 2014, the appellants' 17-month-old daughter fell into an open stormwater drain in Uitenhage, resulting in her tragic death. The appellants claimed that the municipality had a duty to maintain the drains and had been previously warned about the danger posed by the uncovered drain. The trial court found the municipality liable, but the full court overturned this decision, leading to the current appeal.

THE ISSUES

The court had to decide whether the municipality was delictually liable for the child's death, focusing on the elements of wrongfulness, negligence, and causation. Additionally, the court considered the credibility of witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence presented regarding the municipality's knowledge of the hazardous condition.

ANALYSIS

The court analyzed the evidence presented at trial, emphasizing the credibility of the appellants' witnesses who testified about the municipality's failure to address the uncovered drain. It highlighted the municipality's duty to maintain public safety and the legal implications of its negligence. The court found that the full court had misdirected itself in evaluating the evidence and failed to recognize the municipality's legal obligations.

REMEDY

The court upheld the appeal, reinstating the trial court's order that the municipality was liable for damages arising from the child's death. The municipality was ordered to pay the appellants' costs, including the costs of two counsel.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment established key legal principles regarding municipal liability, including: - The duty of care owed by municipalities to ensure public safety. - The distinction between wrongfulness and negligence in delictual claims. - The importance of credible evidence in establishing liability and the role of the courts in evaluating witness credibility.

The court reaffirmed that a municipality's failure to act on known hazards can lead to liability for damages resulting from such negligence.