Dessie v Firstrand Bank Ltd (32414/12) [2012] ZAGPJHC 255 (28 November 2012)

Dessie v Firstrand Bank Ltd (32414/12) [2012] ZAGPJHC 255 (28 November 2012)

The court held that the plaintiff's claim is not recognized in South African common law. There is no legal basis for holding an employer liable for damages resulting from an employee's extramarital affair. The exception taken by the defendant is well founded, as the particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action. The application for postponement was dismissed, and the exception was upheld with costs awarded to the defendant.

Citation
[2012] ZAGPJHC 255
Parties
Plaintiff: Ramnath Dessie; Defendant: Firstrand Bank Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2012
Case Number
32414/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Claim
Outcome
Defendant's exception upheld; plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Exception to Claim, Pain and Suffering, Employer Liability, Common Law Development
Civil Procedure Delict Exception to Claim Pain and Suffering Employer Liability Common Law Development

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

Ramnath Dessie

Plaintiff

Firstrand Bank Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim for damages against an employer is recognized in law when an employee's extramarital affair causes pain and suffering to a third party.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim discloses a cause of action under South African common law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's claim is not recognized in South African common law. There is no legal basis for holding an employer liable for damages resulting from an employee's extramarital affair. The exception taken by the defendant is well founded, as the particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action. The application for postponement was dismissed, and the exception was upheld with costs awarded to the defendant.

Court Disposition

Defendant's exception upheld; plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for postponement is dismissed.
  • The defendant's exception is upheld.