Haskins v Lee N.O. and Another (3800/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 230 (2 December 2016)

Haskins v Lee N.O. and Another (3800/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 230 (2 December 2016)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving the conclusion and terms of the alleged oral agreement as pleaded. The plaintiff's viva voce evidence was inconsistent with his pleadings and contained multiple contradictions regarding when and how the agreement was concluded and the manner of repayment. The documentary evidence and correspondence did not corroborate the plaintiff's version, and his failure to call a key witness (Marion) warranted an adverse inference. The court applied the cautionary rule for claims against deceased estates and found the plaintiff neither credible nor reliable. As a result, the plaintiff did not prove the existence of the...

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 230
Parties
Plaintiff: David Haskins; Defendant: Shirley Margaret Lee N.O.; Defendant: The Master of the Free State High Court N.O.
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2016
Case Number
3800/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Adjudication of Merits Only
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Zyl
Legal Topics
Claim Against Deceased Estate, Oral Agreement, Onus of Proof, Pleadings Consistency, Cautionary Rule Evidence
Civil Procedure Family and Children Claim Against Deceased Estate Oral Agreement Onus of Proof Pleadings Consistency Cautionary Rule Evidence

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Haskins

Plaintiff

Shirley Margaret Lee N.O.

Defendant

The Master of the Free State High Court N.O.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Adjudication of Merits Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff and his parents concluded the oral agreement as pleaded in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the particulars of claim.
  2. 2 Whether the terms of the alleged agreement included repayment of advances by the estate upon the death of the survivor.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proving the agreement and its terms on a balance of probabilities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving the conclusion and terms of the alleged oral agreement as pleaded. The plaintiff's viva voce evidence was inconsistent with his pleadings and contained multiple contradictions regarding when and how the agreement was concluded and the manner of repayment. The documentary evidence and correspondence did not corroborate the plaintiff's version, and his failure to call a key witness (Marion) warranted an adverse inference. The court applied the cautionary rule for claims against deceased estates and found the plaintiff neither credible nor reliable. As a result, the plaintiff did not prove the existence of the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed, with costs.