E U Civils (Pty) Ltd. v Clifford Harris (Pty) Ltd. (473/93) [1995] ZASCA 10 (10 March 1995)

E U Civils (Pty) Ltd. v Clifford Harris (Pty) Ltd. (473/93) [1995] ZASCA 10 (10 March 1995)

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving that control over the driver, Mr Hentile, had passed from Basil Read (Pty) Ltd to the respondent. Although the applicant relied on circumstantial evidence and the close relationship between the respondent and its holding company, the facts did not support a reasonable inference that the respondent exercised the necessary control and supervision over Hentile to be held vicariously liable. The absence of direct evidence or express agreement regarding the transfer of control was decisive. Consequently, the application for condonation was dismissed and the appeal was struck from the roll.

Citation
[1995] ZASCA 10
Parties
Applicant: E U Civils (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Clifford Harris (Pty) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 March 1995
Case Number
473/93
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation and Appeal
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed; appeal struck from the roll with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Hefer, Steyn, F H Grosskopf, Van den Heever, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Onus of Proof, Condonation, Control and Supervision
Civil Procedure Delict Vicarious Liability Onus of Proof Condonation Control and Supervision

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E U Civils (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Clifford Harris (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent exercised sufficient control over the driver to be held vicariously liable for the damages caused by the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant discharged the onus of proving that control over the driver had passed to the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for failure to serve the notice of appeal should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving that control over the driver, Mr Hentile, had passed from Basil Read (Pty) Ltd to the respondent. Although the applicant relied on circumstantial evidence and the close relationship between the respondent and its holding company, the facts did not support a reasonable inference that the respondent exercised the necessary control and supervision over Hentile to be held vicariously liable. The absence of direct evidence or express agreement regarding the transfer of control was decisive. Consequently, the application for condonation was dismissed and the appeal was struck from the roll.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed; appeal struck from the roll with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The appeal is struck from the roll with costs, including the costs of two counsel.