Litigation: Pensioner’s Battle: Winning the Argument, Losing the Case

Introduction

On 29 November 2024, the Johannesburg High Court delivered judgment in a delictual case where the Plaintiff, a lessee on the Defendant’s premises, sued the Defendant after a gate fell on her. The significance of this judgment is highlighted below.

Brief Facts

The Plaintiff sustained injuries in August 2020 when a malfunctioning gate fell on her. The gate had been primarily operated manually since about 2015 due to ongoing mechanical issues. As a result of the incident, the Plaintiff claimed that she had sustained injuries to her left shoulder, left lumbar region, and left hip. However, she did not seek immediate medical intervention. Instead, she claimed to have self-medicated while being in contact with her doctor, only consulting the doctor almost a year after the incident.

Legalities

The Plaintiff’s claim was based on delict, requiring her to prove the five elements of delict: conduct, wrongfulness, fault, causation, and harm. At the hearing, the Defendant conceded having a duty to maintain the gate but denied breaching that duty. The Plaintiff’s testimony, however, was somewhat contradictory.

As is common in contentious delictual cases, the issues of liability and quantum were separated. The hearing in question focused on liability. The Defendant challenged the element of “harm,” arguing that the Plaintiff failed to show that she suffered any loss or damage due to the incident. The court emphasized that the Plaintiff’s failure to seek prompt medical attention and her delay of almost a year before consulting a doctor undermined her claim. The Plaintiff explained her delay by claiming that she is naturally stoic. However, this explanation did not satisfactorily convince the court that she had suffered harm as a result of the incident.

The Plaintiff’s representative argued that, since this was a merits trial, it was unnecessary to prove injuries and the effects thereof at this stage. The court rejected this argument, holding that, as a delictual claim, all elements of delict—including harm—must be proven, even at the liability stage.

Conclusion

This case underscores the importance of providing sufficient evidence for each element of delict in delictual claims. Courts are unlikely to favor one party’s version of events over another without concrete evidence. Additionally, it highlights that “injuries” and “effects” are relevant not only during the quantum stage but also during the merits stage, albeit for a different purpose.