Bidvest Protea Coin Security (Pty) Ltd v Mabena (A10/2020) [2023] ZAMPMHC 22 (2 June 2023)

Bidvest Protea Coin Security (Pty) Ltd v Mabena (A10/2020) [2023] ZAMPMHC 22 (2 June 2023)

The appeal court found that the appellant failed to properly plead the defence of necessity in its plea, raising it only during the opening address at trial. This deprived the respondent of the opportunity to reply and undermined the effectiveness of the trial process. The court held that the defence of necessity must be pleaded with clarity and particularity, and that the appellant's reliance on 'sudden and unexpected emergency' was insufficient. The evidence, including video footage, supported the trial court's acceptance of the respondent's version and the finding of liability. The appellant's failure to call direct witnesses to the shooting and the lack of amendment to its plea were...

Citation
[2023] ZAMPMHC 22
Parties
Appellant: Bidvest Protea Coin Security (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mandla Wellem Mabena
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 June 2023
Case Number
A10/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of the condonation application.
Judges
Mankge, Mphahlele, Vukeya
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Pleading Requirements, Defence of Necessity, Assessment of Evidence
Delict Civil Procedure Vicarious Liability Pleading Requirements Defence of Necessity Assessment of Evidence

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bidvest Protea Coin Security (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Mandla Wellem Mabena

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant properly pleaded the defence of necessity in its plea.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in finding the appellant 100% liable for damages suffered by the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was shot at point blank range by the appellant's security personnel as found by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that the appellant failed to properly plead the defence of necessity in its plea, raising it only during the opening address at trial. This deprived the respondent of the opportunity to reply and undermined the effectiveness of the trial process. The court held that the defence of necessity must be pleaded with clarity and particularity, and that the appellant's reliance on 'sudden and unexpected emergency' was insufficient. The evidence, including video footage, supported the trial court's acceptance of the respondent's version and the finding of liability. The appellant's failure to call direct witnesses to the shooting and the lack of amendment to its plea were...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of the condonation application.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs to include the costs of the condonation application.