Maamogwa and Another v Monare (21/2012, 22/2012) [2017] ZANWHC 61 (10 August 2017)

Maamogwa and Another v Monare (21/2012, 22/2012) [2017] ZANWHC 61 (10 August 2017)

The court found that the plaintiffs did not consult or instruct the defendant attorney personally, nor did they provide evidence of a mandate for him to act on their behalf. The payment made was only for a consultation, not for legal representation. No evidence was presented to substantiate the quantum of damages claimed, nor was expert evidence led regarding earnings or loss thereof. Applying the test for absolution from the instance, the court held that there was no evidence upon which a reasonable court could find for the plaintiffs. Consequently, absolution from the instance was granted with costs in favour of the defendant.

Citation
[2017] ZANWHC 61
Parties
Plaintiff: Margaret Maamogwa; Plaintiff: Maria Maamogwa; Defendant: Segalo Ephraim Monare
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 August 2017
Case Number
21/2012, 22/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Absolution From the Instance at Close of Plaintiffs' Case
Outcome
Absolution from the instance granted with costs in favour of the defendant.
Judges
R D Hendricks
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Absolution From Instance, Prescription, Quantum of Damages
Civil Procedure Delict Professional Negligence Absolution From Instance Prescription Quantum of Damages

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

Parties

Margaret Maamogwa

Plaintiff

Maria Maamogwa

Plaintiff

Segalo Ephraim Monare

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Absolution From the Instance at Close of Plaintiffs' Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs instructed the defendant attorney to act on their behalf and institute a claim against the Road Accident Fund.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant accepted a mandate to act for the plaintiffs.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims for damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs did not consult or instruct the defendant attorney personally, nor did they provide evidence of a mandate for him to act on their behalf. The payment made was only for a consultation, not for legal representation. No evidence was presented to substantiate the quantum of damages claimed, nor was expert evidence led regarding earnings or loss thereof. Applying the test for absolution from the instance, the court held that there was no evidence upon which a reasonable court could find for the plaintiffs. Consequently, absolution from the instance was granted with costs in favour of the defendant.

Court Disposition

Absolution from the instance granted with costs in favour of the defendant.

Orders

  • Absolution from the instance is granted in both actions.
  • Margaret Maamogwa is ordered to pay the costs of the defendant in case 21/2012.