Coetzee v Steenkamp (579/2009) [2010] ZANCHC 25 (18 June 2010)

Coetzee v Steenkamp (579/2009) [2010] ZANCHC 25 (18 June 2010)

The court found that the plaintiff was not a passive passenger but an active participant in the illegal hunting expedition, having shot a spring-hare and assisted with equipment. The plaintiff's ignorance of the law was rejected as incredible given his background and experience. The principle nemo ex suo delicto meliorem suam conditionem facere potest was applied, precluding the plaintiff from benefiting from his own unlawful conduct. The court distinguished the present case from authorities where the passenger's illegal act was not causally linked to the claim, finding that the plaintiff's participation in the illegal hunt was integral to the circumstances leading to his injury....

Citation
[2010] ZANCHC 25
Parties
Plaintiff: Andries Marthinus Coetzee; Respondent: Kobus Steenkamp
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2010
Case Number
579/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Preliminary Issue of Nemo Ex Suo Delicto Decided
Outcome
Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.
Judges
F DIALE KGOMO
Legal Topics
Nemo Ex Suo Delicto, Contributory Negligence, Volenti Non Fit Iniuria, Illegal Hunting, Statutory Offence
Delict Nemo Ex Suo Delicto Contributory Negligence Volenti Non Fit Iniuria Illegal Hunting Statutory Offence

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andries Marthinus Coetzee

Plaintiff

Kobus Steenkamp

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Preliminary Issue of Nemo Ex Suo Delicto Decided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff can recover damages for injuries sustained during an illegal hunting expedition.
  2. 2 Whether the principle nemo ex suo delicto meliorem suam conditionem facere potest precludes the plaintiff's claim.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's professed ignorance of the law excuses his illegal conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was not a passive passenger but an active participant in the illegal hunting expedition, having shot a spring-hare and assisted with equipment. The plaintiff's ignorance of the law was rejected as incredible given his background and experience. The principle nemo ex suo delicto meliorem suam conditionem facere potest was applied, precluding the plaintiff from benefiting from his own unlawful conduct. The court distinguished the present case from authorities where the passenger's illegal act was not causally linked to the claim, finding that the plaintiff's participation in the illegal hunt was integral to the circumstances leading to his injury....

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The preliminary issue of nemo ex suo delicto is decided in favour of the defendant.
  • The plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs on a party and party scale.