Costa Da Oura Restaurant (Proprietary) Limited t/a Umdloti Bush Tavern v Reddy

The respondent was a patron at the appellant’s tavern on 31 October 1997. Goldie, a casual barman employed by the appellant, failed to serve the respondent promptly, which led to a verbal exchange and criticism of Goldie’s service. Goldie became upset and was instructed by management not to engage further with the respondent. Shortly thereafter, when the respondent and his girlfriend left the premises, Goldie exited the tavern, followed them into the corridor outside the entrance, and assaulted the respondent, causing serious injuries. Goldie was immediately dismissed. The respondent sued the appellant, alleging vicarious liability for Goldie’s assault.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the respondent’s claim with costs.

The case clarifies the limits of vicarious liability in South African law, particularly in assault cases involving employees. It reaffirms that temporal and spatial proximity alone is insufficient; the decisive inquiry is whether the employee was acting in the course and scope of employment. The judgment aligns South African law with comparative authority and reinforces the ‘frolic of his own’ qualification.