Malie N.O and Others v Chisha and Others (101188/2015) [2020] ZAGPPHC 113 (17 March 2020)

Malie N.O and Others v Chisha and Others (101188/2015) [2020] ZAGPPHC 113 (17 March 2020)

The court found that the evidence against the third defendant, Mr Vere, was unsatisfactory, vague, and inconclusive. The testimony did not meet the threshold required for a reasonable court to find against him, and his application for absolution from the instance was upheld. In contrast, the evidence and documents presented against the fifth and sixth defendants were sufficient to establish grounds upon which a court might find in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, their applications for absolution from the instance were refused.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 113
Parties
Applicant: Vusan I Francis Malie N.O & Others; Respondent: Shiphra Chisha and Others; Defendant: Mr Vere; Defendant: Fifth Defendant; Defendant: Sixth Defendant
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 March 2020
Case Number
101188/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Application for Absolution From the Instance After Close of Plaintiff's Case
Outcome
The application for absolution from the instance by the third defendant is upheld with costs. The applications by the fifth and sixth defendants are refused with costs.
Judges
Davis
Legal Topics
Absolution From the Instance, Joint Wrongdoer Liability, Bribery and Corruption, Section 424 Companies Act
Civil Procedure Delict Commercial and Corporate Absolution From the Instance Joint Wrongdoer Liability Bribery and Corruption Section 424 Companies Act

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vusan I Francis Malie N.O & Others

Applicant

Shiphra Chisha and Others

Respondent

Mr Vere

Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Defendant

Sixth Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Application for Absolution From the Instance After Close of Plaintiff's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable court to find against the third, fifth, and sixth defendants at the close of the plaintiff's case.
  2. 2 Whether the third defendant (Mr Vere) was a joint wrongdoer in relation to alleged bribes.
  3. 3 Whether the fifth and sixth defendants' involvement creates liability under Section 424 of the Companies Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence against the third defendant, Mr Vere, was unsatisfactory, vague, and inconclusive. The testimony did not meet the threshold required for a reasonable court to find against him, and his application for absolution from the instance was upheld. In contrast, the evidence and documents presented against the fifth and sixth defendants were sufficient to establish grounds upon which a court might find in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, their applications for absolution from the instance were refused.

Court Disposition

The application for absolution from the instance by the third defendant is upheld with costs. The applications by the fifth and sixth defendants are refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application by the third defendant for absolution from the instance against him is upheld with costs.
  • The application by the fifth and sixth defendants for absolution from the instance against them is refused with costs.