In April 2025, the High Court dismissed a claimant’s attempt to appeal against the dismissal of her delictual claim against a retail store owner and a cleaning services provider for injuries she suffered as a result of her fall at the entrance of the store. The court decided that the appeal did not have reasonable prospects of success.

The claimant alleged that the cause of her fall and consequent injuries was a wet floor at the entrance of the store, which had been cleaned by the service provider on behalf of the store owner.

The trial court reaffirmed that the burden of proof in delictual matters remains with the claimant. Despite witness testimony suggesting that the floor had recently been mopped, the court decided that when the evidence was considered holistically, the claimant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the floor was wet or cleaned with a wet or damp mop and, therefore, she failed to prove negligence on the part of the store owner or service provider.

In considering the application for leave to appeal, the High Court applied the threshold of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, which requires a judge in the appeal court to be satisfied that an appeal would have reasonable prospects of success – not merely that an appeal might have reasonable prospects of success. The court reaffirmed that the former less onerous test of “reasonable possibility” has been replaced by the requirement of “reasonable certainty” that another court would come to a different conclusion. In this case, the court was not persuaded that another court would do so.

Brits v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd and Another (Leave to Appeal) (911/2016) [2025]