The responsibility of municipalities to ensure that public spaces are reasonably safe has once again come under scrutiny. In a recent decision in Thamsanqa Wilson Madubane v eThekwini Municipality, the KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Pietermaritzburg held the municipality accountable for injuries suffered by a pedestrian who fell into an exposed manhole during loadshedding. The ruling confirms that municipalities owe the public a clear duty of care and may be held liable where they fail to maintain infrastructure or respond to known hazards.

The Incident

On the evening of 6 June 2019, Mr Madubane left his home to buy a candle. The neighbourhood was completely dark due to loadshedding, and as he walked along the pavement, he stepped into an uncovered manhole. A metal bar inside the manhole pierced his leg, causing significant injuries, later corroborated by photographs placed before the court. Although the area had previously been cordoned off with warning tape, by the time of the incident the tape had disappeared.

The Municipality’s Defence

eThekwini Municipality contended that it was unaware of the open manhole, stating that sewer infrastructure inspections were conducted twice a year and that the city faced financial constraints. The court was not persuaded. Evidence showed that the manhole had been exposed for months and that its condition had previously been brought to the attention of a local councillor. The municipality’s witnesses were unable to confirm that complaints were ever logged, nor could they produce any maintenance or inspection records. The argument about limited resources was also dismissed as it was raised late, without factual support.

The Court’s Findings

The court reaffirmed that municipalities are legally obligated to take reasonable steps to ensure that public roads, pavements, and infrastructure do not pose a danger to users. In this case, the municipality accepted that the manhole should have been covered but failed to act on its duty. The photographs and testimony demonstrated that the hazard had been left unattended for a prolonged period and had previously been taped off, indicating prior knowledge or at the very least constructive knowledge.

This inaction, the court held, constituted negligence. The failure to safeguard the public from a clearly dangerous condition made the municipality liable for the injuries suffered.

Contributory Negligence Considered

The municipality also suggested that Mr Madubane was partly to blame because he lived in the area and knew where the manhole was located. The court rejected this. With no warning markers, no lighting and no questions put to the plaintiff on why he chose to walk on the pavement instead of the road, the municipality did not discharge its burden to prove contributory negligence. The darkness created by loadshedding, coupled with the absence of visible alerts, made it unreasonable to expect him to avoid the hazard.

Outcome and Key Lessons

The municipality was ordered to compensate Mr Madubane for all damages proven or agreed upon and to pay the legal costs of the action.

This ruling underscores several important principles:

• Municipalities must actively monitor and maintain public infrastructure.
• Reported hazards must be addressed promptly and documented.
• Claims of inadequate resources must be supported by credible, objective evidence.
• Failure to take reasonable preventative steps exposes municipalities to full liability.

The judgment serves as a reminder that public authorities cannot rely on vague defences or administrative lapses when the safety of the public is at stake.