Makola v Imperial Group (Pty) Ltd (A57/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 205 (21 November 2013)

Makola v Imperial Group (Pty) Ltd (A57/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 205 (21 November 2013)

The court found that the appellant's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal and record was inadequate and vague, but the interests of justice and her good prospects of success justified condonation. On the merits, the court held that the magistrate erred in finding the appellant solely liable for the collision. Both drivers were negligent: the appellant failed to stop and yield at the intersection, while the respondent's driver was traveling at excessive speed, failed to reduce speed, and did not take appropriate evasive action. The respondent's driver had a relative, not absolute, right of way and should have adjusted his conduct in response to the appellant's erratic driving....

Citation
[2013] ZAFSHC 205
Parties
Appellant: Motlhago Florence Makola; Respondent: Imperial Group (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 2013
Case Number
A57/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of court a quo set aside; liability apportioned 70% to appellant and 30% to respondent; costs awarded to appellant.
Judges
M. H. Rampai, R. M. Sepato
Legal Topics
Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Motor Vehicle Collision, Contributory Negligence
Delict Negligence Apportionment of Liability Motor Vehicle Collision Contributory Negligence

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 8 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Motlhago Florence Makola

Appellant

Imperial Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's delay in filing the appeal and record should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the court a quo erred in finding the appellant solely liable for the motor vehicle collision.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's driver was also negligent and contributed to the collision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal and record was inadequate and vague, but the interests of justice and her good prospects of success justified condonation. On the merits, the court held that the magistrate erred in finding the appellant solely liable for the collision. Both drivers were negligent: the appellant failed to stop and yield at the intersection, while the respondent's driver was traveling at excessive speed, failed to reduce speed, and did not take appropriate evasive action. The respondent's driver had a relative, not absolute, right of way and should have adjusted his conduct in response to the appellant's erratic driving....

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of court a quo set aside; liability apportioned 70% to appellant and 30% to respondent; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted as follows: