Lisoti Logistics v Vaal Maseru and Another (A633/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 28 (5 March 2020)

Lisoti Logistics v Vaal Maseru and Another (A633/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 28 (5 March 2020)

The court found that the appellant had presented sufficient evidence, including the truck driver's testimony, police statement, sketch plan, and photographs, to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the first respondent. The point of impact in the appellant's lane and the admitted presence and control of traffic officers by the second respondent supported the claim. The court a quo misapplied the test for absolution and erred in granting absolution from the instance, particularly given the presence of multiple defendants and the need to consider all evidence. The appeal was upheld, the order of absolution set aside, and the matter remitted for continuation of the trial.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 28
Parties
Appellant: Lisoti Logistics; Respondent: Vaal Maseru; Respondent: The MEC for Community & Safety, Security and Liaison for Mpumalanga Provincial Government
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2020
Case Number
A633/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Absolution From the Instance at Close of Plaintiff's Case
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of absolution from the instance set aside; matter remitted for continuation of trial.
Judges
P D Phahlane, N Davis, D S Molefe
Legal Topics
Absolution From the Instance, Negligence, Multiple Defendants, Prima Facie Case, Damages Claim
Civil Procedure Delict Absolution From the Instance Negligence Multiple Defendants Prima Facie Case Damages Claim

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

Parties

Lisoti Logistics

Appellant

Vaal Maseru

Respondent

The MEC for Community & Safety, Security and Liaison for Mpumalanga Provincial Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Absolution From the Instance at Close of Plaintiff's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo correctly granted absolution from the instance at the close of the appellant's case.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant established a prima facie case of negligence against the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the presence and control of traffic officers at the scene was sufficiently proved.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant had presented sufficient evidence, including the truck driver's testimony, police statement, sketch plan, and photographs, to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the first respondent. The point of impact in the appellant's lane and the admitted presence and control of traffic officers by the second respondent supported the claim. The court a quo misapplied the test for absolution and erred in granting absolution from the instance, particularly given the presence of multiple defendants and the need to consider all evidence. The appeal was upheld, the order of absolution set aside, and the matter remitted for continuation of the trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of absolution from the instance set aside; matter remitted for continuation of trial.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: The application for absolution from the instance is refused with costs.