Ghyoot v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund (458/95) [1997] ZASCA 104 (25 November 1997)

Ghyoot v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund (458/95) [1997] ZASCA 104 (25 November 1997)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court's awards for past and future loss of earnings were justified and not inadequate. The evidence did not establish that the farming venture was viable, nor that the cost of employing a manager was an appropriate measure of future loss. The trial judge's application of a 30% contingency allowance to the past loss of earnings was within his discretion, given the risks associated with agricultural production. The appellant's arguments regarding the viability of the farm and the quantification of future loss were not supported by admissible evidence. The appeal was dismissed as there was no substantial variation or striking disparity in the...

Citation
[1997] ZASCA 104
Parties
Appellant: Franscina Elizabeth Ghyoot; Respondent: Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 November 1997
Case Number
458/95
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Quantum of Damages Awarded in Trial Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Eksteen, Howie, Plewman, Streicher, Van Coller
Legal Topics
Loss of Earnings, Quantification of Damages, Contingency Allowance, Earning Capacity, Viability of Business
Delict Loss of Earnings Quantification of Damages Contingency Allowance Earning Capacity Viability of Business

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Franscina Elizabeth Ghyoot

Appellant

Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Quantum of Damages Awarded in Trial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court's awards for past and future loss of earnings were inadequate.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant established a viable claim for future loss of earnings based on the cost of employing a manager.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in applying a contingency allowance to the past loss of earnings claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court's awards for past and future loss of earnings were justified and not inadequate. The evidence did not establish that the farming venture was viable, nor that the cost of employing a manager was an appropriate measure of future loss. The trial judge's application of a 30% contingency allowance to the past loss of earnings was within his discretion, given the risks associated with agricultural production. The appellant's arguments regarding the viability of the farm and the quantification of future loss were not supported by admissible evidence. The appeal was dismissed as there was no substantial variation or striking disparity in the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.