Pretorius v Transnet Bpk. (627/92) [1994] ZASCA 178; 1995 (2) SA 309 (AD); [1995] 2 All SA 53 (A) (29 November 1994)

Pretorius v Transnet Bpk. (627/92) [1994] ZASCA 178; 1995 (2) SA 309 (AD); [1995] 2 All SA 53 (A) (29 November 1994)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 20 of the Military Pensions Act does not exclude a claim for general damages (solatium) against the State. The Court reasoned that the statutory compensation regime was not intended to cover all heads of damage, particularly general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities, and that the legislative intent behind the 1976 Act differed from that of the earlier War Pensions Acts. The Court distinguished the present case from Casely, finding that the presumption against abrogation of common law rights was not rebutted by the purposes of the 1976 Act. Accordingly, the special plea raised by the respondent was based on an incorrect premise...

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 178
Parties
Appellant: A C Pretorius; Respondent: Transnet Beperk
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 1994
Case Number
627/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division; Special Plea Decided; Appeal Heard
Outcome
Appeal upheld; special plea dismissed with costs; matter postponed sine die.
Judges
Van Heerden, Vivier, Kumleben, Van Den Heever, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Military Pensions, Statutory Exclusion of Liability, General Damages, Loss of Earning Capacity
Delict Civil Procedure Military Pensions Statutory Exclusion of Liability General Damages Loss of Earning Capacity

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A C Pretorius

Appellant

Transnet Beperk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division; Special Plea Decided; Appeal Heard

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 20 of the Military Pensions Act 84 of 1976 excludes a claim for general damages (solatium) against the State.
  2. 2 Whether the statutory compensation under the Act precludes common law claims for loss of earning capacity and general damages.
  3. 3 Whether the special plea raised by the respondent was valid in law.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 20 of the Military Pensions Act does not exclude a claim for general damages (solatium) against the State. The Court reasoned that the statutory compensation regime was not intended to cover all heads of damage, particularly general damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities, and that the legislative intent behind the 1976 Act differed from that of the earlier War Pensions Acts. The Court distinguished the present case from Casely, finding that the presumption against abrogation of common law rights was not rebutted by the purposes of the 1976 Act. Accordingly, the special plea raised by the respondent was based on an incorrect premise...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; special plea dismissed with costs; matter postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The special plea is dismissed with costs.
  • The matter is postponed sine die.