THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
MEDIA STATEMENT – CASE HEARING IN SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
| Gouda Boerdery BK v Transnet Limited | |
|
|
|
| Supreme Court of Appeal -314/03 | Hearing date: 31 August 2004 |
| Judgment date: 27 September 2004 | |
Summary: Fire in railway reserve 20 m wide – not a ‘veldfire’ within the meaning of s 34 of of Act 101 of 1998 – meaning of that section – appellant’s action in delict – legal duty on respondent not to cause harm negligently - failure to establish firebreak in reserve not negligent in the circumstances. |
|
Media Summary
of Judgment |
|
GOUDA BOERDERY BK / TRANSNET LIMITED
From : The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal Please note that the media summary is for the benefit of the media and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal The Supreme Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Cape High Court which held Transnet Ltd not to be liable for damage resulting from a fire which started in the Railway reserve adjacent to the tracks between Voëlvlei and Gouda in the Western Cape. The fire spread to the farm Nuwewater, which was bisected by the railway reserve, an d from there to other farms causing considerable damage. The owner of Nuwewater sued Transnet for damages alleging that it had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent a fire from starting on its property or from spreading to neighbouring properties. The cause of the fire was unknown. It was common cause between the parties that the fire had not been started by a train. The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the fire was not a ‘veldfire’ within the meaning of the National Veld and Forest Fire Act. Had the fire been a veldfire within the meaning of the Act, Transnet would have been obliged to prove on a balance of probabilities that it had not been negligent. In the event, the appellant was not relieved of the burden of proving that Transnet had been negligent. The Court held that Transnet’s failure to establish firebreaks on either side of the tracks within the 20 metre wide reserve did not amount to negligence on its part.
|
|