Loriza Brahman (Tommiesrus (Edms) Bpk h/a Loriza Brahman) and Another v Dippenaar

During a Brahman cattle production auction held on 22 May 1997, a Brahman heifer named Alicia, owned by the first appellant (Loriza Brahman), suddenly broke away from a group of cattle inside an auction kraal and charged at a group of people, including the respondent, Mr Dippenaar. Without provocation or any identifiable external stimulus, the heifer knocked Dippenaar over, causing fractures to his tibia and fibula. Dippenaar sued the owner of the animal under the actio de pauperie for damages, and alternatively sued the second appellant, Naudé (the herd manager), under the actio legis Aquiliae. The alternative claim against Naudé was not pursued at trial.

The appeal against liability was dismissed. The first appellant was held liable for the respondent’s damages under the actio de pauperie. The costs order of the court a quo was amended so that the respondent must pay the second appellant’s trial costs, while both appellants were held jointly and severally liable for the costs of appeal.

The case is a leading modern authority reaffirming the continued existence and relevance of the actio de pauperie in South African law. It clarifies the contra naturam sui generis requirement, confirms that the test is based on the genus of domestic animals rather than specific breeds, and underscores that the action constitutes a form of strict (risk-based) liability. The judgment also reflects the Supreme Court of Appeal’s approach to the development, rather than abolition, of Roman-Dutch legal remedies.