Ntombana v Messrs Nel Mentz Steyn Ellis Incorporated (2232/2016) [2022] ZAECQBHC 23 (23 August 2022)

Ntombana v Messrs Nel Mentz Steyn Ellis Incorporated (2232/2016) [2022] ZAECQBHC 23 (23 August 2022)

The court found that the defendant attorneys accepted the plaintiff's mandate to institute a claim against the Road Accident Fund but negligently failed to do so, resulting in prescription of the claim. The evidence established that both the plaintiff and the driver, Mr Zote, were negligent in the accident. The court accepted Mr Zote's version of events, finding that the collision occurred near the T-junction and that the plaintiff failed to keep a proper lookout. Applying the relevant legal principles, the court held that the plaintiff would have recovered 50% of her proven damages from the Road Accident Fund but for the defendant's breach. Accordingly, the defendant was liable to the...

Citation
[2022] ZAECQBHC 23
Parties
Plaintiff: Boniswa Esther Ntombana; Defendant: Messrs Nel Mentz Steyn Ellis Incorporated
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2022
Case Number
2232/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff partially succeeds; defendant ordered to pay 50% of claimed damages.
Judges
J W Eksteen
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Breach of Mandate, Contributory Negligence, Damages Assessment
Civil Procedure Delict Professional Negligence Breach of Mandate Contributory Negligence Damages Assessment

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

Parties

Boniswa Esther Ntombana

Plaintiff

Messrs Nel Mentz Steyn Ellis Incorporated

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached its mandate as attorneys by failing to institute a claim against the Road Accident Fund before prescription.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff would have succeeded in her claim against the Road Accident Fund but for the defendant's negligence.
  3. 3 To what extent, if any, the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in the underlying motor vehicle accident.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant attorneys accepted the plaintiff's mandate to institute a claim against the Road Accident Fund but negligently failed to do so, resulting in prescription of the claim. The evidence established that both the plaintiff and the driver, Mr Zote, were negligent in the accident. The court accepted Mr Zote's version of events, finding that the collision occurred near the T-junction and that the plaintiff failed to keep a proper lookout. Applying the relevant legal principles, the court held that the plaintiff would have recovered 50% of her proven damages from the Road Accident Fund but for the defendant's breach. Accordingly, the defendant was liable to the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff partially succeeds; defendant ordered to pay 50% of claimed damages.

Orders

  • Defendant must pay the plaintiff R400,000.00 as damages.
  • Defendant must pay interest on the aforesaid amount at the prescribed legal rate from the date of judgment to the date of payment.