RMH Agencies CC t/a Midlands Mica Hardware v Pharazyn and Another (AR 169/10) [2010] ZAKZPHC 51 (2 September 2010)

RMH Agencies CC t/a Midlands Mica Hardware v Pharazyn and Another (AR 169/10) [2010] ZAKZPHC 51 (2 September 2010)

The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving delivery of goods for which there were no signed delivery notes. The evidence relied upon, including computer-generated invoices and the first respondent's statement regarding occupation of the building, was insufficient. The statement by the first respondent was an opinion, not a proven fact, and was not supported by expert evidence or the necessary factual foundation. The proper approach requires proof on a balance of probabilities, which was not met. The Magistrate was correct in dismissing the claim for lack of proof of delivery.

Citation
[2010] ZAKZPHC 51
Parties
Appellant: RMH Agencies CC t/a Midlands Mica Hardware; Respondent: N G Pharazyn; Respondent: Reiner Barford
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 September 2010
Case Number
AR 169/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Costs awarded against the appellant.
Judges
K Swain, E Steyn
Legal Topics
Proof of Delivery, Burden of Proof, Contractual Terms, Opinion Evidence
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Proof of Delivery Burden of Proof Contractual Terms Opinion Evidence

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RMH Agencies CC t/a Midlands Mica Hardware

Appellant

N G Pharazyn

Respondent

Reiner Barford

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant discharged the onus of proving delivery of goods for which there were no signed delivery notes.
  2. 2 Whether the statement by the first respondent regarding occupation of the building constituted admissible evidence of delivery.
  3. 3 Whether opinion evidence was properly admitted and given sufficient weight.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving delivery of goods for which there were no signed delivery notes. The evidence relied upon, including computer-generated invoices and the first respondent's statement regarding occupation of the building, was insufficient. The statement by the first respondent was an opinion, not a proven fact, and was not supported by expert evidence or the necessary factual foundation. The proper approach requires proof on a balance of probabilities, which was not met. The Magistrate was correct in dismissing the claim for lack of proof of delivery.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Costs awarded against the appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the second respondent's costs of the appeal.