Kingdom Films and Others v Kaplan NO (14/43457) [2016] ZAGPJHC 37 (7 March 2016)

Kingdom Films and Others v Kaplan NO (14/43457) [2016] ZAGPJHC 37 (7 March 2016)

The court held that the law of delict requires proof of actual damage suffered before a cause of action accrues. The respondents' particulars of claim only allege a potential or prospective loss, calculated as the present-day value of future profits, and do not allege any actual diminution in the patrimony of KWS at...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 37
Parties
Applicant: Kingdom Films; Applicant: Mandy Richardson; Applicant: Kevin Rene Richardson; Applicant: Kevin Richardson Wildlife Sanctuary (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: The Lion Whisperer; Applicant: Sid Howell Investments (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Gerald Howell; Applicant: Lynne Robertson; Applicant: Kevin Rene Richardson NO; Applicant: Mandy Richardson NO; Applicant: Craig Rossel NO; Applicant: Deadly Predator Challenge (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Harry Kaplan NO; Respondent: Mmatlou Hellen Phaleng
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2016
Case Number
14/43457
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld. Plaintiffs afforded ten days to amend particulars of claim. Costs awarded against plaintiffs.
Judges
Vally
Legal Topics
Aquilian Action, Pure Economic Loss, Exception Procedure, Once and for All Rule
Civil Procedure Delict Aquilian Action Pure Economic Loss Exception Procedure Once and for All Rule

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kingdom Films

Applicant

Mandy Richardson

Applicant

Kevin Rene Richardson

Applicant

Kevin Richardson Wildlife Sanctuary (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

The Lion Whisperer

Applicant

Sid Howell Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Gerald Howell

Applicant

Lynne Robertson

Applicant

Kevin Rene Richardson NO

Applicant

Mandy Richardson NO

Applicant

Craig Rossel NO

Applicant

Deadly Predator Challenge (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Harry Kaplan NO

Respondent

Mmatlou Hellen Phaleng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim for purely prospective damages in the form of pure economic loss discloses a cause of action in delict.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim allege actual loss suffered by the plaintiff at the time of the alleged unlawful conduct.
  3. 3 Whether the 'once and for all' rule allows a claim for prospective damages absent any accrued damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the law of delict requires proof of actual damage suffered before a cause of action accrues. The respondents' particulars of claim only allege a potential or prospective loss, calculated as the present-day value of future profits, and do not allege any actual diminution in the patrimony of KWS at the time of the alleged unlawful conduct. The 'once and for all' rule does not permit a claim for prospective damages in the absence of any accrued damages. As a result, the particulars of claim fail to disclose a cause of action, and the exception is upheld. However, the respondents are afforded an opportunity to amend their particulars of claim to remedy this defect.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld. Plaintiffs afforded ten days to amend particulars of claim. Costs awarded against plaintiffs.

Orders

  • The exceptions to Claim A and Claim B are upheld.
  • The plaintiffs are afforded a period of ten (10) days from the date of this order to initiate such amendment to their Particulars of Claim as they deem fit in order to remove the grounds of the exceptions.