About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPJHC 647
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Rivett v Blom and Another (2023/118280) [2026] ZAGPJHC 647 (10 June 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO:
2023-118280
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/ NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED.
10
June 2026
In the matter between:
LOUISE
ANN RIVETT
Plaintiff
And
ROBERT
BLOM
First
defendant
ANN
BLOM
Second
defendant
This
Order is made an Order of Court by the Judge whose name is reflected
herein, duly stamped by the Registrar of the Court and
is submitted
electronically to the Parties / their legal representatives by email.
This Order is further uploaded to the electronic
file of this matter
on Caselines/CourtOnline by the Judge’s secretary. The date of
this order is deemed to be 10 June 2026.
JUDGMENT
CORAM: LIEBENBERG AJ:
[1]
On the morning of 4 July 2023 Charlie, an
English bulldog, managed to slip through a gate. What happened
next forms the dispute
between the parties.
The plaintiff’s
case
[2]
The plaintiff was walking her two dogs,
Max, a Scottish terrier, and Marge, a mixed breed Yorkshire terrier.
Both the dogs
were on leads. She noticed Charlie running at her
from the left. She described Charlie as running at pace with
his
ears back. On reaching the plaintiff, Charlie stopped,
looked up at her and then ran straight through her legs knocking her
off balance. The plaintiff fell to the ground on all fours.
Charlie then started fighting with Max. The plaintiff grabbed
onto Charlie’s hind legs trying to pull him off of Max but she
lost grip and fell backwards on her buttocks. The dogs
were
fighting and the plaintiff could not get up other than by rolling
onto her hands and knees. According to the plaintiff,
the
second defendant was just standing there looking on.
[3]
After the ruckus, Ms Miriam Gabela arrived
at the scene, picked up Max and took him to the plaintiff’s
home. The plaintiff
followed later. At home, she lay down
on the couch and noticed that Max had saliva over his neck and
chest. Because
she was in pain, she could not check on Max
herself and telephoned a friend, Ms Christina Lamb to do so.
[4]
Ms Gabela arrived at the scene to find the
plaintiff on the ground. She tried to assist by picking up Max
and taking the dog
to the plaintiff’s home. She did not
see the interaction nor when, how or why the plaintiff fell.
She also did
not see any physical contact between the dogs.
[5]
Ms Lamb testified that she checked on Max
and found lots of saliva on his neck. He was tender to the
touch in the neck and
squealed a bit but did not require the
attention of a veterinarian.
The defendants’
case
[6]
The second defendant went to unlock the
gate for her domestic assistant, Ms Rachel Ndemande to enter when
Charlie slipped out and
ran towards the plaintiff. The second
defendant immediately ran after Charlie, caught up with him and held
him down between
her legs allowing the plaintiff and her dogs to
pass. She noticed that Max, who was wriggling to get to
Charlie, wriggled
loose from the plaintiff’s grip on the leash
when she lost her balance and fell. The second defendant was
adamant that
there was no contact between the dogs nor any contact
between the plaintiff and Charlie. Ms Ndemande picked up Max,
who was
pulling at his lead. The second defendant saw the plaintiff
lying on the grass verge when Ms Gabela came out to assist her up.
Ms Ndemande handed Max over to Ms Gabela who left with the plaintiff
and the two dogs for the plaintiff’s home.
[7]
Ms Ndemande testified that when Charlie
slipped out of the gate, the second defendant ran after him and
caught him before he reached
the plaintiff and her two dogs.
Especially Max was pulling at his lead, wanting to reach Charlie.
He pulled so powerfully
that he pulled free from the plaintiff’s
hand and ran towards Charlie. At the same time, the plaintiff
fell and hit
the ground with her back. Ms Ndemande picked up Max and
held him. She noticed no injuries or saliva on Max. The plaintiff
stood
up on her own and took Max from Ms Ndemande. Ms Gabela joined
the gathering and took one of the dogs from the plaintiff. According
to Ms Ndemande the plaintiff fell when she lost strength pulling back
on Max’s lead. She was adamant that Charlie did
not run
through the plaintiff’s legs and the dogs did not fight.
She also denied that the plaintiff grabbed onto Charlie’s
hind
legs.
Analysis
[8]
Confronted
with two mutually destructive versions, a court must make findings
on
(a)
the
credibility of the various factual witnesses,
(b)
their
reliability, and
(c)
the
probabilities.
[1]
[9]
All the witnesses testified in a
forthcoming and candid manner. Each was credible without
displaying any blatant bias.
Under cross-examination each of
the witnesses stood their ground in a reliable manner.
[10]
The plaintiff’s testimony was
unemotional and to the point. She was able to recall events
with clarity of mind and resolute
about what transpired. Her
version remain consistent throughout and was corroborated by a
contemporaneous report she made
to the home owners’
association. However, insurance claims forms she completed, the
letter of demand and pleadings
do not mention her falling twice.
[11]
Ms Gabela did not provide corroboration for
the plaintiff’s version of events as she did not witness the
incident and arrived
on the scene later. Ms Gabela could not throw
any light on what caused the plaintiff to fall. Her evidence
was of little
value in establishing what transpired.
[12]
Ms Lamb’s evidence was centred around
her checking on Max’s possible injuries at the plaintiff’s
request.
Her evidence had no bearing on the incident and how or
why the plaintiff fell.
[13]
The second defendant was steadfast that she
caught up with Charlie before he reached either the plaintiff or her
dogs, and that
there was no contact between Charlie and the plaintiff
or between the dogs. According to the second defendant Max was
wriggling
on his leash which caused the plaintiff to lose balance and
fall. Under rigorous cross-examination the second defendant stood
firm
on her version that there was no contact between Charlie and the
plaintiff or between the dogs, and that the plaintiff’s fall
was caused by her losing her balance when Max wriggled loose from his
leash. The second defendant was somewhat defensive
but overall
testified in a satisfactory manner.
[14]
Ms Ndemande corroborated the second
defendant’s version of events and specifically that there was
no contact between the dogs
or between Charlie and the plaintiff. Ms
Ndemande, who no longer works for the defendants was a reliable,
unbiased and candid
witness who testified in a non-emotional
manner, answering all questions put to her forthright and to the
point. According
to Ms Ndemande the second plaintiff
immediately rushed after Charlie when he slipped trough the gate and
she caught up with him
before he reached the plaintiff. After
the second defendant caught Charlie and held him down, both Max and
Marge were trying
to reach Charlie by pulling at their leashes.
Especially Max was more powerful and pulled until the plaintiff lost
grip of
the leash and fell. Ms Ndemande picked up Max and
noticed no saliva or injuries on the dog. She denied that
Charlie
ran through the plaintiff’s legs or that he reached Max
and Marge and fought with either of them. Ms Ndemande struck
as
an honest witness who evidenced no bias in favour of her former
employer.
[15]
The
proper test to be applied in this matter is whether, on a balance of
probabilities, the essential features of the witnesses’
testimony are true.
[2]
Applying this test, I am satisfied that it seems improbable that the
plaintiff would enter into the fray of a dog fight and
grab a hold of
the aggressor dog’s hind legs. Given her stance whilst
holding on to the dogs hind legs, it also appears
improbable that she
fell backwards onto her buttocks when she lost grip. By
contrast, the material features of the second
defendant’s
version, corroborated by Ms Ndemande’s testimony, ring true.
[16]
In the circumstances, the plaintiff failed
to acquit the onus resting on her and her claim must fail.
[17]
It is ordered that:
1.
The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed
with costs including counsel’s fees on scale B.
SARITA LIEBENBERG
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
For the plaintiff:
Adv Grobler instructed by
Adams and Adams
For the defendants:
Adv Venter instructed by
Molefe Knight Attorneys
Heard on 18 and 19 May
2026
Judgment on 10 June 2026
[1]
Stellenbosch
Farmers' Winery Group Ltd and Another v Martell Et Cie and
Others
2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA).
[2]
Santam Bpk v Biddulph
2004 (5) SA 586
(SCA) at 592B.