Mmore v Makhetha (A3080/17) [2018] ZAGPJHC 134 (26 April 2018)

Mmore v Makhetha (A3080/17) [2018] ZAGPJHC 134 (26 April 2018)

The court found that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving ownership of the Renault Megane. The evidence established that the R42,000 paid by the respondent was capital for a joint business venture, not a gift. The respondent's involvement in the purchase, sale, and registration of the vehicles was consistent with a business arrangement, and the registration in the appellant's name was intended to conceal the venture from the respondent's life partner. The appellant's version was improbable, and her credibility was undermined by the evidence and context. The court a quo correctly considered both credibility and probabilities, and there was no misdirection in its findings....

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 134
Parties
Appellant: Mothusi Cloudine Mmore; Respondent: Letele Makhetha
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 April 2018
Case Number
A3080/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, excluding the costs of counsel for the respondent who appeared pro bono.
Judges
R M Keightley, S July
Legal Topics
Rei Vindicatio, Ownership of Moveable Property, Burden of Proof, Credibility of Witnesses
Civil Procedure Land and Property Rei Vindicatio Ownership of Moveable Property Burden of Proof Credibility of Witnesses

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

Parties

Mothusi Cloudine Mmore

Appellant

Letele Makhetha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant established ownership of the Renault Megane motor vehicle.
  2. 2 Whether the payment of R42,000 by the respondent to the appellant was a gift or capital for a joint business venture.
  3. 3 Whether registration of the vehicle in the appellant's name constituted legal ownership.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving ownership of the Renault Megane. The evidence established that the R42,000 paid by the respondent was capital for a joint business venture, not a gift. The respondent's involvement in the purchase, sale, and registration of the vehicles was consistent with a business arrangement, and the registration in the appellant's name was intended to conceal the venture from the respondent's life partner. The appellant's version was improbable, and her credibility was undermined by the evidence and context. The court a quo correctly considered both credibility and probabilities, and there was no misdirection in its findings....

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, excluding the costs of counsel for the respondent who appeared pro bono.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, excluding the costs of counsel for the respondent, who appeared pro bono.