Ramatlo v Mphela and Associates and Another (45224/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 421 (29 March 2017)

Ramatlo v Mphela and Associates and Another (45224/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 421 (29 March 2017)

The court found that there was no evidence that the plaintiff presented any imminent danger to the police or property, and the means used by the police were excessive given the circumstances. The defendants failed to testify or provide evidence linking their admitted negligence to the police's actions, leaving a gap in their case. The court held that the defendants' negligence in failing to prosecute the plaintiff's claim was not excused, and the chain of evidence was incomplete. Consequently, the court was not persuaded that the appeal had reasonable prospects of success.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 421
Parties
Plaintiff: Katlego Sanah Ramatlo; Defendant: Mphela & Associates; Defendant: Tshepo Matlala
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2017
Case Number
45224/2014
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
S. A. M. Baqwa
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Professional Negligence, Causation, Necessity Defence
Civil Procedure Delict Leave to Appeal Professional Negligence Causation Necessity Defence

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katlego Sanah Ramatlo

Plaintiff

Mphela & Associates

Defendant

Tshepo Matlala

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal has reasonable prospects of success.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' failure to prosecute the plaintiff's claim was excusable.
  3. 3 Whether the police's use of force constituted necessity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no evidence that the plaintiff presented any imminent danger to the police or property, and the means used by the police were excessive given the circumstances. The defendants failed to testify or provide evidence linking their admitted negligence to the police's actions, leaving a gap in their case. The court held that the defendants' negligence in failing to prosecute the plaintiff's claim was not excused, and the chain of evidence was incomplete. Consequently, the court was not persuaded that the appeal had reasonable prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.