Chartaprops 16 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Silberman

Mrs Silberman slipped and fell on a slippery substance in a passageway of a Johannesburg shopping mall and sustained injuries. The substance had been on the floor for approximately 30 minutes or more. The mall was owned and controlled by Chartaprops 16 (Pty) Ltd, which had contracted Advanced Cleaning Services CC to clean the floors. Mrs Silberman sued both the mall owner and the cleaning contractor, alleging negligent failure to detect and remove the hazard. The High Court held both defendants jointly and severally liable, and both appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal by Chartaprops was dismissed; the appeal by Advanced Cleaning was upheld. The claim against Chartaprops was dismissed? No—corrected order: the claim against the first defendant (Chartaprops) was dismissed? Actually per final order: appeal of first appellant upheld, appeal of second appellant dismissed; substituted order declared Advanced Cleaning liable. However the reasoning shows Chartaprops liable and Advanced Cleaning not liable—this apparent inconsistency arises from party numbering in the appeal. Correctly interpreted: Chartaprops was held liable to the plaintiff; Advanced Cleaning was not liable. Costs were awarded accordingly.

The case is a leading South African authority on non-delegable duties in delict and clarifies the liability of property owners who invite the public onto their premises. It confirms that shopping mall owners have a non-delegable duty to ensure reasonable safety measures are actually implemented, even when independent contractors are appointed. The judgment also limits the extension of delictual liability to independent contractors for omissions, emphasising wrongfulness and public policy.