Hack Stupel and Ross Attorneys v Kgang (560/06) [2007] ZASCA 132; [2007] SCA 132 (RSA) (28 September 2007)

Hack Stupel and Ross Attorneys v Kgang (560/06) [2007] ZASCA 132; [2007] SCA 132 (RSA) (28 September 2007)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court fundamentally erred by awarding damages in motion proceedings where the facts were seriously disputed and no proper evidence of damages was adduced. The respondent did not allege or prove the quantum of damages, nor did he establish the appellant's liability on any acceptable basis. The High Court improperly relied on unauthenticated correspondence and evidence obtained irregularly by the judge after reserving judgment. The purchase price of the property did not automatically translate into damages suffered, and there was no evidence regarding factors such as mortgage bonds or calculation of quantum. The appeal was upheld, and the...

Citation
[2007] ZASCA 132
Parties
Appellant: Hack Stupel and Ross Attorneys; Respondent: Leslie Kgang
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2007
Case Number
560/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Harms, Navsa, Mthiyane, Hurt, Kgomo
Legal Topics
Damages in Motion Proceedings, Sale in Execution, Quantum of Damages, Writ of Execution, Section 66 Magistrates Court Act
Civil Procedure Land and Property Damages in Motion Proceedings Sale in Execution Quantum of Damages Writ of Execution Section 66 Magistrates Court Act

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hack Stupel and Ross Attorneys

Appellant

Leslie Kgang

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damages may be awarded in motion proceedings where facts are disputed.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent adduced sufficient evidence to prove damages sustained from the sale in execution.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was properly held liable for damages in the absence of clear evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court fundamentally erred by awarding damages in motion proceedings where the facts were seriously disputed and no proper evidence of damages was adduced. The respondent did not allege or prove the quantum of damages, nor did he establish the appellant's liability on any acceptable basis. The High Court improperly relied on unauthenticated correspondence and evidence obtained irregularly by the judge after reserving judgment. The purchase price of the property did not automatically translate into damages suffered, and there was no evidence regarding factors such as mortgage bonds or calculation of quantum. The appeal was upheld, and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court below is set aside and substituted as follows: The application is dismissed with costs.