Enslin v Nhlapo

On 9 February 2002 at about 7pm, the respondent was driving on the R26 public road near the farm Holfontein when he collided with a young Brahman bull that had strayed onto the road. The respondent sued the appellant, the owner of the farm, alleging that the appellant either owned or controlled the cattle and negligently failed to prevent them from straying onto the road or to warn motorists. Evidence showed that the bull belonged to a third party, Mr Mkwanazi, but was grazing on the appellant’s farm with his knowledge and consent, and that the appellant exercised control over the grazing camp. The camp was separated from the public road by an access road with two gates, both of which had to be open for the cattle to reach the road. Although the appellant had instructed employees to keep the gates closed, it was foreseeable that they could be left open. The magistrate’s court dismissed the claim, but the High Court upheld an appeal and found in favour of the respondent. The matter ultimately came before the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was dismissed with costs. The finding of liability in favour of the respondent stood, with damages to be determined. The court further ordered that legal representatives could not recover fees relating to an incompetent full-bench appeal, and any such fees had to be refunded.

The case is important for clarifying the delictual liability of landowners or occupiers for harm caused by animals straying onto public roads. It affirms that ownership of the animal is not decisive; control over the land or situation and foreseeability of harm are central. The judgment illustrates the application of the reasonable person test and the duty to take inexpensive and practical precautions to prevent foreseeable harm to road users.