Hako v Sitoile (1980/09) [2013] ZAECMHC 3 (24 January 2013)

Hako v Sitoile (1980/09) [2013] ZAECMHC 3 (24 January 2013)

The court found that the Plaintiff's version of events was not reasonably possibly true, particularly regarding the point of impact and the manner in which the vehicles were damaged. The Plaintiff's evidence was inconsistent and contradicted by the physical evidence and the Defendant's account. The Defendant's version, that his vehicle was stationary and waiting to turn when the Plaintiff collided with it, was accepted as reasonably possibly true. The Plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on the part of the Defendant. Consequently, the court held that the collision was not caused by the Defendant's negligent driving and ordered absolution from the instance.

Citation
[2013] ZAECMHC 3
Parties
Plaintiff: Thamsanqa Hako; Defendant: Sitoile Mzolisi
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 January 2013
Case Number
1980/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits of Liability Separated From Quantum Under Rule 33(4); Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; absolution from the instance granted.
Judges
LP Pakade
Legal Topics
Negligence, Motor Vehicle Collision, Absolution From the Instance
Delict Negligence Motor Vehicle Collision Absolution From the Instance

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thamsanqa Hako

Plaintiff

Sitoile Mzolisi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits of Liability Separated From Quantum Under Rule 33(4); Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant was negligent in causing the motor vehicle collision with the Plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's evidence is reasonably possibly true regarding the circumstances of the collision.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's version of events is reasonably possibly true.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff's version of events was not reasonably possibly true, particularly regarding the point of impact and the manner in which the vehicles were damaged. The Plaintiff's evidence was inconsistent and contradicted by the physical evidence and the Defendant's account. The Defendant's version, that his vehicle was stationary and waiting to turn when the Plaintiff collided with it, was accepted as reasonably possibly true. The Plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence on the part of the Defendant. Consequently, the court held that the collision was not caused by the Defendant's negligent driving and ordered absolution from the instance.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; absolution from the instance granted.

Orders

  • There shall be absolution from the instance.