Dessie v Firstrand Bank Ltd (32414/12) [2012] ZAGPJHC 255 (28 November 2012)
- Citation
- [2012] ZAGPJHC 255
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Willis
- Case number
- 32414/12
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Willis
- Case number
- 32414/12
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.
- The plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant's costs in this exception.
02
Material facts
Parties
Ramnath Dessie
PlaintiffFirstrand Bank Limited
Defendant Counsel: Rose03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Claim
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
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.
- 02
Whether the plaintiff's claim discloses a cause of action under South African common law.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff contends that the defendant, as the employer of his wife, is liable for the pain and suffering he endured due to her extramarital affair with a colleague at work. He seeks damages from the employer, alleging responsibility for the consequences of the affair.
- Respondent
- The defendant argues that South African law does not recognize a claim for damages against an employer in these circumstances. The exception is taken on the basis that the plaintiff's particulars of claim do not disclose a valid cause of action under common law.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law principles as applied by the High Court
South African common law does not recognize a claim for damages against an employer arising from an employee's extramarital affair causing pain and suffering to a third party.
- 02
Rule 23 of the Uniform Rules of Court
Exceptions are upheld where the particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action recognized by law.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
Obiter and limits
- Litigants in Johannesburg are often imaginative, but the present claim is unprecedented and cannot be entertained by the court.
- Awards of damages against employers for employees falling in love at work are not and will not be recognized in South African law.
Court disposition
Defendant's exception upheld; plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
- The application for postponement is dismissed.
- The defendant's exception is upheld.
- The plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant's costs in this exception.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (SOUTH GAUTENG)
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 32414/12
DATE: 2012-11-28
In the matter between
RAMNATH DESSIE...................................................Plaintiff
and
FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED....................................Defendant
J U D G M E N T
WILLIS, J:
[1] There should be a motto, ex curia Johannesburgensis semper aliquid novi: out of the Johannesburg High Court there is always something new. This is an application in which an exception has been taken.
[2] The claim of the plaintiff is bizarre, to say the least. The plaintiff's claim is based on the fact that his wife had an extramarital affair with someone while his wife was working at FirstRand Bank Limited. The plaintiff’s claim rests on the premise that FirstRand Bank Limited are somehow responsible for his pain and suffering as a result of this affair.
[3] I know that litigants can be imaginative here in Johannesburg, but this is one that deserves a special prize. There is no such claim recognised in our common law. I am quite confident that, no matter how much judges of this division may try to develop the common law, we are not, in this country, going to start allowing awards of damages against employers because people fall in love while they are at work. This happens all the time. It has happened, and will no doubt continue to happen until the cows come home.
[4] The exception is well taken. The defendant has now applied for a postponement on the basis of indisposition, but I fully agree with Advocate Rose, who appears for the excipient, that there is no point in procrastinating with this matter. There is no point in prolonging the pain and the agony.
[5] The application for a postponement is dismissed. Counsel for the plaintiff, seeking the postponement, was not instructed to argue the merits of the matter. The merits of the matter are clearly unmeritorious and, accordingly, the defendant's exception is upheld. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs in this exception.
_____
WILLIS J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.