Makaula v MEC for Department Social Development (2030/05) [2007] ZAECHC 112 (18 October 2007)

Makaula v MEC for Department Social Development (2030/05) [2007] ZAECHC 112 (18 October 2007)

The court found the plaintiff's version of events to be credible, supported by impartial and consistent witness testimony, and the physical evidence regarding the location and nature of the damage. The defendant's version was improbable and not supported by the evidence. The plaintiff discharged the onus of proof in respect of both liability and quantum. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the motor vehicle and incidental expenses, as well as costs including qualifying expenses for expert witnesses and costs attendant upon the taking and filing of photographs. The necessary witnesses were declared for purposes of taxation.

Citation
[2007] ZAECHC 112
Parties
Plaintiff: Lumumba Makaula; Defendant: MEC for the Department of Social Development
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2007
Case Number
2030/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of R232,312.47 as damages, plus costs including qualifying expenses and costs attendant upon the taking and filing of photographs. Necessary witnesses declared for taxation purposes.
Judges
C T Sangoni
Legal Topics
Negligence, Motor Vehicle Collision, Quantum of Damages, Costs and Taxation
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Motor Vehicle Collision Quantum of Damages Costs and Taxation

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lumumba Makaula

Plaintiff

MEC for the Department of Social Development

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the collision was caused by the negligence of the defendant's driver.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff proved the quantum of damages claimed.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs and qualifying expenses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff's version of events to be credible, supported by impartial and consistent witness testimony, and the physical evidence regarding the location and nature of the damage. The defendant's version was improbable and not supported by the evidence. The plaintiff discharged the onus of proof in respect of both liability and quantum. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the motor vehicle and incidental expenses, as well as costs including qualifying expenses for expert witnesses and costs attendant upon the taking and filing of photographs. The necessary witnesses were declared for purposes of taxation.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of R232,312.47 as damages, plus costs including qualifying expenses and costs attendant upon the taking and filing of photographs. Necessary witnesses declared for taxation purposes.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of R232,312.47 as and for damages.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff, including qualifying expenses of Mr Bezuidenhout, if any.