Rockview Investment Number Seventy One CC v Nottingham Incorporated [2020] NASC 30 (11 August 2020)

Rockview Investment Number Seventy One CC v Nottingham Incorporated [2020] NASC 30 (11 August 2020)

The court held that the principle of res ipsa loquitur was misapplied by the court a quo; the presumption of negligence should have operated against the first respondent, whose minibus struck the stationary Mercedes Benz, not against the third respondent (cross-appellant), whose vehicle was stationary and only propelled into the appellant's car by the force of the initial collision. The first respondent failed to satisfactorily explain his conduct and did not discharge the evidential burden created by the presumption.

Citation
[2020] NASC 30
Parties
Appellant: Sofia Dausab; First Respondent: Jelevasiu Hedimund; Second Respondent: Afzel Shahbaz; Third Respondent (cross Appellant): Wilbard Nalupe
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
11 August 2020 11 August 2020 7 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Cross Appeal
Outcome
Cross-appeal allowed; claim against third defendant dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Chain Collision Liability, Costs
Source Language
English
Tort Law Civil Procedure Negligence Motor Vehicle Accidents Res Ipsa Loquitur Chain Collision Liability Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sofia Dausab

Appellant

Jelevasiu Hedimund

First Respondent

Afzel Shahbaz

Second Respondent

Wilbard Nalupe

Third Respondent (cross Appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo misapplied the principle of res ipsa loquitur in attributing negligence to the third respondent (cross-appellant)
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent was negligent and caused the chain collision
  3. 3 Whether the cross-appellant should have been held liable for damages to the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the principle of res ipsa loquitur was misapplied by the court a quo; the presumption of negligence should have operated against the first respondent, whose minibus struck the stationary Mercedes Benz, not against the third respondent (cross-appellant), whose vehicle was stationary and only propelled into the appellant's car by the force of the initial collision. The first respondent failed to satisfactorily explain his conduct and did not discharge the evidential burden created by the presumption.

Court Disposition

Cross-appeal allowed; claim against third defendant dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The cross-appeal succeeds. Paragraph (a) of the order of the court a quo is substituted with: 'The plaintiff’s claim against the third defendant is dismissed and there shall be no order as to costs.'
  • Order (c) of the court a quo is declared pro non scripto and is set aside.