Monareng v Majories Trading Enterprise CC (A34/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 622; 2025 (3) SA 574 (GP) (18 June 2024)

Monareng v Majories Trading Enterprise CC (A34/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 622; 2025 (3) SA 574 (GP) (18 June 2024)

The court found that the defence of necessity was properly canvassed in evidence, even if not specifically pleaded, and that the Magistrate was entitled to decide the case on that basis. The appellant's version was rejected due to material contradictions, lack of credibility, and failure to challenge key aspects of the respondent's evidence. The respondent's version, supported by consistent and reliable testimony, established that Monareng was placed in imminent danger by the appellant's unlawful conduct. The court held that Monareng's actions—pleading with the appellant, showing his firearm, firing a warning shot, and ultimately shooting the appellant in the leg—were reasonable and...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 622
Parties
Appellant: Kleinbooi Monareng; Respondent: Majories Trading Enterprise CC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2024
Case Number
A34/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Costs awarded to the respondent on party and party scale B.
Judges
Snyman
Legal Topics
Necessity Defence, Personal Injury, Credibility Assessment, Damages, Pleading and Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Necessity Defence Personal Injury Credibility Assessment Damages Pleading and Proof

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kleinbooi Monareng

Appellant

Majories Trading Enterprise CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of necessity was properly pleaded and proven by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the Magistrate erred in accepting the respondent's version and rejecting the appellant's version.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the security guard in shooting the appellant was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defence of necessity was properly canvassed in evidence, even if not specifically pleaded, and that the Magistrate was entitled to decide the case on that basis. The appellant's version was rejected due to material contradictions, lack of credibility, and failure to challenge key aspects of the respondent's evidence. The respondent's version, supported by consistent and reliable testimony, established that Monareng was placed in imminent danger by the appellant's unlawful conduct. The court held that Monareng's actions—pleading with the appellant, showing his firearm, firing a warning shot, and ultimately shooting the appellant in the leg—were reasonable and...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Costs awarded to the respondent on party and party scale B.

Orders

  • The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent’s costs on party and party scale B.