In November 2025, the High Court found the eThekwini Municipality liable for injuries sustained by a claimant who fell into an open manhole on a public pavement after dark during loadshedding.

The claimant had been walking to a nearby shop at night during loadshedding when he fell into an open manhole. A steel iron on the inside of the manhole penetrated his leg and he sustained leg injuries. He alleged that the municipality was negligent in failing to ensure that the manhole was covered or otherwise made safe for the public. The claimant further testified that the manhole had been left uncovered for several months despite being reported to the municipality. It had previously been cordoned off with red tape to alert the public about the open manhole. However, on the night in question the red tape was no longer in place. 

The municipality denied negligence. It argued that it had not received any complaints about the open manhole and therefore had no knowledge of the hazard. It further argued that its staff conducted routine inspections and that it relied on the public to report defects. The municipality also raised contributory negligence, arguing that the claimant knew about the manhole, the danger it posed and that he went past it 3 to 4 times a week. He therefore should have taken action to avoid the manhole.

The court decided that the claimant’s evidence was consistent and supported by photographs showing remnants of the red tape around the manhole. No documentary evidence was produced by the municipality to prove that no complaints had been received, and no witnesses with direct knowledge of the earlier inspections were led. The court found that the manhole had been left open for some time which was a danger to the public and that the municipality failed to discharge its duty of care to ensure that the manhole was covered.

The municipality’s defence of contributory negligence was rejected. The court held that, given the darkness caused by loadshedding, the removal of the red tape, and the general safety concerns in the high crime area, it could not be expected of the claimant to avoid the hazard in the circumstances.

This judgment serves as a reminder to municipalities and other public authorities that they may be held liable where hazardous infrastructure is left unattended for extended periods. Proper reporting systems, regular inspections, and temporary warning measures remain essential tools in mitigating the risk of personal injury and claims arising from public infrastructure defects.

Madubane v Ethekwini Municipality (6934/2021P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 116 (5 November 2025)