Madubane v Ethekwini Municipality (6934/2021P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 116 (5 November 2025)

Case Note

Thamsanqa Wilson Madubane v Ethekwini Municipality
[2025] ZAKZP 122
Date: 5 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable as it addresses significant issues of municipal liability regarding the duty of care owed by local governments to ensure public safety in their jurisdictions. The judgment clarifies the extent of liability for damages arising from omissions by municipal authorities, particularly in cases involving open and hazardous manholes. The decision is expected to have implications on similar cases where individuals suffer injuries due to negligence on the part of municipal bodies.

Cases Cited

• Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden 2002 (6) SA 431 (SCA)
• Johannes Diederick Le Rloux NO v The Nelson Mandela Municipality [2025] ZASCA 122

Legislation Cited

• Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999
• Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002

Rules of Court Cited

• The relevant High Court Rules were implicitly referenced in relation to procedural compliance regarding the notice of intention to claim.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The High Court of South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal Division, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Thamsanqa Wilson Madubane, who sought damages for injuries sustained after falling into an open manhole owned by the Ethekwini Municipality. The substantial evidence presented showed a clear failure on the part of the municipality to maintain public safety, demonstrating negligence that resulted in the plaintiff's injuries. The court determined that the defendant municipal body had a duty of care which it failed to fulfill.

Key Issues

The legal issues centered around the following points: 1. Duty of care owed by the municipality to the public. 2. Proving negligence on the part of the municipality in addressing the hazardous condition of the open manhole. 3. Contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff due to his familiarity with the area and the previously cordoned nature of the manhole.

Held

The court held that the defendant, Ethekwini Municipality, was 100% liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. It found that the municipality failed to maintain the manhole and did not take reasonable steps to warn or protect the public from the open hazard.

THE FACTS

On June 6, 2019, the plaintiff fell into an open manhole in a darkened suburban area due to loadshedding. He was familiar with the route but could not see the open manhole because of the absence of temporary warning measures, which had been previously indicated by red tape. The plaintiff suffered significant injuries which necessitated medical treatment after being rescued from the manhole. The evidence showed that the manhole had been open without proper barriers for several months prior to the incident.

Witness testimonies from both the plaintiff and his wife corroborated the fact that the manhole had previously been marked with tape but was left unattended at the time of the accident. The defendant's witnesses, who operated under municipal protocols, acknowledged the lack of prior complaints made regarding the manhole prior to the incident but could not substantively defend the absence of action taken to remedy the situation.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with resolving whether the municipality was liable for negligence due to their failure to properly maintain the manhole and whether the plaintiff exhibited any contributory negligence in relation to his injuries. The essential questions included the municipality's knowledge of the danger posed by the open manhole and the adequacy of their response to prior reports or inspections.

ANALYSIS

In its analysis, the court highlighted the duty of care that municipalities owe to their residents, emphasizing that the municipality's failure to act constituted negligence. The court pointed out that the plaintiff's testimony was credible and uncontested, indicating that the manhole had been a known hazard in the community. Also noteworthy was the fact that the defendant's employees were not able to provide direct evidence about the maintenance history of the manhole.

The court rejected the municipality's defense based on the argument of limited resources, underscoring that such constraints did not absolve them from their legal obligations to ensure public safety. Additionally, the absence of adequate warning measures at the time of the incident directly contributed to the court's conclusion that the municipality had acted negligently.

REMEDY

The court ordered that the Ethekwini Municipality was to compensate the plaintiff for 100% of the proven or agreed damages resulting from the injuries sustained due to the accident. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered to pay the entire costs of the action, which included the plaintiff's legal expenses.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment reinforced critical legal principles regarding municipal liability, particularly surrounding the duty of care owed by local governments. The court established that an omission to act on the part of a municipality, which leads to hazardous conditions, is a basis for liability if reasonable measures are not taken to ensure public safety. Moreover, it was found that the existence of a potential contributory negligence did not absolve the defendant from its primary liability when the plaintiff could not have reasonably foreseen the danger under the circumstances. This case sets a precedent that may influence future claims against municipalities for injuries arising from public hazards.