Mahlakeng v Base (Pty) Ltd (CIV/T 437 of 18) [2019] LSHC 43 (10 September 2019)

Mahlakeng v Base (Pty) Ltd (CIV/T 437 of 18) [2019] LSHC 43 (10 September 2019)

Plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence, documentary or otherwise, to prove that the claimed expenses for alternative transport were actually incurred; mere assertion is insufficient to sustain a claim for special damages.

Citation
[2019] LSHC 43
Parties
Plaintiff: Tsoeu Thulo Mahlakeng; Defendant: Base (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
10 September 2019
Case Number
CIV/T 437 of 18
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Unopposed Hearing (default Judgment Application)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Special Damages, Burden of Proof, Negligence, Default Judgment
Source Language
English
Delict Civil Procedure Special Damages Burden of Proof Negligence Default Judgment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsoeu Thulo Mahlakeng

Plaintiff

Base (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Unopposed Hearing (default Judgment Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff proved pecuniary loss arising from deprivation of property due to defendant's negligence
  2. 2 Whether special damages were specifically and explicitly proved

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence, documentary or otherwise, to prove that the claimed expenses for alternative transport were actually incurred; mere assertion is insufficient to sustain a claim for special damages.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.