South Africa’s most important city crumbling in front of everyone’s eyes and endangering people

A recent High Court judgement determined that municipalities have a legal duty to take reasonable, proactive steps to ensure the safety of public infrastructure in their domains.

Law firm Webber Wentzel recently outlined the findings in the matter of Yende v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another.

In this case, the plaintiff, Yende, sustained injuries after falling into an uncovered stormwater manhole on Chris Hani Road, Soweto, while walking to catch a taxi. 

Yende suffered a fractured right ankle, which required surgery and an extended hospital stay. 

Webber Wentzel explained that the matter proceeded on the issue of liability only, with damages to be determined later.

The plaintiff’s claim was based on negligence and required her to prove all the elements of negligence on a balance of probabilities.

In response, the defendants, Joburg Municipality, denied any legal duty to maintain the manhole. 

In addition, they argued that if such a duty did exist, it was subject to the limitations of manpower and available resources.

Webber Wentzel said the plaintiff’s evidence confirmed that the incident occurred during the day, and she conceded that she had been multitasking, walking briskly while looking for a taxi. 

The defendants presented evidence that the Johannesburg Roads Agency (JRA) had both proactive and reactive maintenance plans for manholes. 

The JRA also reported limited resources and relied on members of the public to report infrastructure defects. According to the evidence, manhole covers are inspected twice a year.

“The court acknowledged that a municipality’s legal duty is not absolute and must be assessed in light of its capacity, particularly funding and staffing,” the law firm explained. 

“However, it found that the defendants had conceded the legal duty to cover and barricade manholes, and were negligent in fulfilling this duty.”

“A reasonable person in the position of the JRA would have taken proactive, reasonable steps to prevent harm, particularly on a road with high pedestrian traffic, such as Chris Hani Road, where the risk of injury was foreseeable.”

In addition, the court could not consider the municipality and the JRA’s argument based on manpower and resources.

This is because the argument had not been put to the plaintiff, and no supporting documentary evidence had been discovered.

Outcome of the legal battle

Ultimately, the court held the defendants, including the municipality, liable to the plaintiff. 

However, it also found that Yende had contributed to the incident, concluding that she had failed to keep a proper lookout. 

“She was found to be contributorily negligent. The court therefore apportioned liability, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable for 50% of the plaintiff’s proven or agreed damages,” the law firm explained.

According to Webber Wentzel, this judgment confirms municipalities do not have blanket liability in defective infrastructure cases. 

Rather, each case must be considered on its own facts. Plaintiffs are also expected to take reasonable care for their own safety.

“Importantly, where relevant and properly presented, evidence of a municipality’s budgetary or resource constraints may help displace a finding of negligence and causation,” the law firm said. 

However, it added that municipalities have a legal duty to take reasonable, proactive steps to ensure the safety of public infrastructure, especially in high-foot traffic areas.

“This duty is not absolute and must be evaluated in light of available resources, but municipalities must produce credible evidence to support any limitation,” it said.

“A failure to act, even in the absence of an absolute duty, may still amount to wrongful and negligent conduct where the risk of harm is foreseeable.”

“Contributory negligence remains an important consideration; members of the public also have a duty to take reasonable care for their own safety.”

Joburg falling apart

This judgement comes as Johannesburg’s infrastructure is at a critical point, with many basic services lacking.

For example, the collapse of the city’s water infrastructure has seen many areas go without water for days or even weeks on end.

Experts have been clear that the problem is not a shortage of water from the bulk supplier or at the country’s dams – it is municipal mismanagement. 

In September 2024, Water Ledger South Africa director Benoit Le Roy clarified that the crisis is not caused by users’ increased consumption. 

He explained that demand has not changed over the last three winters. In contrast, demand is highly predictable, and winter typically enables municipalities to prepare for increased consumption in summer. 

However, Johannesburg was unable to, with failing water infrastructure having prevented reservoirs from filling up. Many were below 50% capacity when they should have been above 80% in anticipation of summer.

More recently, in April 2025, a dispute between Eskom and the City of Johannesburg over unpaid electricity bills was reignited, with the utility threatening to resume power cuts in the city due to non-payment of arrears.

As of September 2024, municipal debt to Eskom stood at R90 billion, with Johannesburg being a significant contributor.

Energy expert Chris Yelland said this situation underscores the need for effective intergovernmental collaboration and timely resolution of disputes to ensure uninterrupted power supply and economic stability.