Mokholwane v Pro Honda (200/95) [1997] ZASCA 52; 1997 (4) SA 223 (SCA); [1997] 3 All SA 447 (A); (27 May 1997)

Mokholwane v Pro Honda (200/95) [1997] ZASCA 52; 1997 (4) SA 223 (SCA); [1997] 3 All SA 447 (A); (27 May 1997)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the statutory definition of 'owner' in Article 1 of the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Act applies to the lessee in cases where a motor vehicle is leased for at least twelve months. In this case, the employer, not the defendant, was the 'owner' for purposes of the Act. Therefore, the statutory bar in Article 52 did not preclude the plaintiff's claim against the defendant. The exception should have been dismissed, and the appeal was upheld. The court also addressed costs, noting that the appellant succeeded on a point raised by the court itself and that the inept pleading led to the exception, but ultimately ordered no costs in either court.

Citation
[1997] ZASCA 52
Parties
Appellant: David Mamuru Mokholwane; Respondent: Pro Honda
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 1997
Case Number
200/95
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Exception Upheld in the Witwatersrand Local Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld; exception dismissed; no order as to costs in either court.
Judges
E M Grosskopf, Vivier, Howie, Zulman, Plewman
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Accident Fund, Statutory Interpretation, Exception Procedure, Definition of Owner
Delict Civil Procedure Motor Vehicle Accident Fund Statutory Interpretation Exception Procedure Definition of Owner

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Mamuru Mokholwane

Appellant

Pro Honda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Exception Upheld in the Witwatersrand Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is precluded by Article 52 of the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Act 93 of 1989.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant qualifies as 'owner' under the statutory definition for purposes of liability under the Act.
  3. 3 Whether the exception to the Particulars of Claim should have been upheld.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the statutory definition of 'owner' in Article 1 of the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Act applies to the lessee in cases where a motor vehicle is leased for at least twelve months. In this case, the employer, not the defendant, was the 'owner' for purposes of the Act. Therefore, the statutory bar in Article 52 did not preclude the plaintiff's claim against the defendant. The exception should have been dismissed, and the appeal was upheld. The court also addressed costs, noting that the appellant succeeded on a point raised by the court itself and that the inept pleading led to the exception, but ultimately ordered no costs in either court.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; exception dismissed; no order as to costs in either court.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late lodging of the power of attorney and the appeal record is granted; the plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the application for condonation.
  • The plaintiff's application for amendment of the Particulars of Claim is refused with costs.