S v Alex Cartage (Pty) Ltd t/a Alex Carriers and Another (64/87) [1988] ZASCA 106 (23 September 1988)

Case No 64/87

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA APPELLATE DIVISION

In the matter between

ALEX CARTAGE (PTY) LIMITEDh/a ALEX CARRIERSAND

THOMAS CECIL TURNBULL APPELLANTS

and

THE STATE RESPONDENTS

CORAM :HEFER, MILNE et EKSTEEN JJA. HEARD : 12 SEPTEMBER 1988. DELIVERED : 23 SEPTEMBER 1988.

JUDGMENT HEFER JA:

After an unsuccessful appeal to the Transvaal

2 Provincial Division the appellants have appealed to this court against their conviction in a magistrate's court on a charge of contravening sec 38(l)(b) of the Road Trans-portation Act 74 of 1977.First appellant is a company having its head office at Pietermaritzburg where it conducts a haulage business. The conviction arose from the transportation by first ap-pellant (of whom second appellant was a director at the relevant time and thus liable to prosecution in terms of sec 332(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977) of certain spare parts which the trial court found were not covered by the permit issued in respect of the trailer in which they were conveyed.In order to understand the argument addressed to us on appellant's behalf it is necessary to refer briefly to the provisions of the permit and to the way in which the evidence was presented to the trial court.

At the commencement of the trial áppellánt's attor-ney formally admitted that the goods described in the

3

charge as "verskeie kratte bevattende swaar voertuig nuweonderdele vir M.A.N. voertuie" had been conveyed in thetrailer. He informed the court that "the accused's de-fence in brief is that they have got a valid Road Trans-portation Permit which authorises inter alia the trans-port of the components which is in issue here ."The permit which was later produced, contains an elabo-rate description of a large variety of goods. Includedtherein are

"5. components required for imme-

diate bona fide repairs of machinery and/or mechanical installation which have become defective and which, due to urgency, require speedy repair."

This is the provision on which the appellants relied in

this court. (It is not necessary to refer to another oneon which they also sought to rely in the trial court and

in the court a quo.)

Pausing for a moment to examine clause 5 it is

immediately apparent that spare parts, whether it be for

heavy vehicles or otherwise, are not mentioned as such.

4

The general class of goods to which the clause refers, is components required for the repair of machinery or mechanical installations. This general class has, moreover, been limited to components required for the so-called immediate repair of defective machinery or mechanical installations which, due to urgency, re-quire speedy repair.In order to prove that the parts conveyed by first appellant were not covered by the permit the pro-secution called Mr L J A Roux, the manager of the com-pany to which they were to be delivered in Isando. It emerged from his evidence that his company had ordered the parts in question as a "normale tipe van maandelikse voorraad bestelling" from its supplier in Germany some four months before the date on which first appellant conveyed them from Durban to Isando. Upon delivery they would have been taken into stock "en vandaar weer teen aanvraag vanaf ons takke en ons handelaars word

5

dit weer versend aan takke en aan handelaars". What hap-pened after he had said this and how his evidence proceededappear from the following extract from the record:

"Mnr Roux, ek toon aan u wat betref diè 45 kaste wat deur Alex Cartage vervoer is, toon ek aan u paklyste wat hier- die bestelling meegemaak het net om u geheue te verfris. Ek wil hê u moet net vir die Hof vertel wat hierdie vrag be-hels het, in kort, u hoef nou nie deur die hele te gaan nie, ek wil net hê u moet vir die Hof beskryf wat se onder-dele is ontvang as u na hierdie lyste

kyk? In kort is dit onderdele vir

basies regoor u voertuig van voor tot agter, nasien werk en dié tipe van dinge, wat insluit enjin onderdele, ratkas onder-dele, en om so 'n woord te gebruik 'chas-sis' onderdele.

In ander woorde, enige moontlike on-derdeel wat nodig kan wees op 'n vragmotor?

Ja. Ek het so 'n bietjie van 'n prob-

leem met enige moontlike onderdeel, dit is onderdele wat regoor 'n voertuig ge-bruik word maar in hierdie besending is daar nie spesifiek alle onderdele wat op die voertuig gebruik word nie.

So in kort sal mens dit kan opsom hethierdie vrag neergekom op onderdele virvragmotors? Vragmotors en busse.

Vragmotors en busse? Dit is korrek.

U het nou gepraat van ratkas onder-dele, masjien onderdele, sou dit goedereinsluit soos ligte? Ja, ligte, kajuit

6

onderdele en so aan sluit dit ook in.

Die waarde van dié onderdele was on-geveer R300 000? Is dit korrek? Dit is korrek ja.

Wat sou u doen indien 'n onderdeeldringend benodig word? Normaalweg asdit 'n dringende onderdeel is wat per lug-vrag kan verskeep word dan bring ons dit in per lugvrag maar dit gebeur wel dat dit 'n item is wat te swaar is vir diê tipe van vervoer en dan kom dit ook in per seevrag wat dan ingesluit word in so 'n besending soos wat ons hier het.Was daar van hierdie besending onder-dele goedere wat noodsaaklike onderdele was of vir noodsaaklike herstelwerk nodigwas? Nie op die stadium toe die bestel-ling geplaas was nie. Maar sedertdien, ten tye van die ontvangs van die goedere was daar wel goedere wat dringend benodig was.

Kan u vir die Hof sê hoeveel? Ditwas 97 lyn items wat deur takke en hande-laars benodig was maar ek weet nie wat was hulle werklike benodigheid gewees as sulks nie, by my was dit as dringend gewees.

Diê 97 items, watter persentasie vanhierdie spesifieke besending maak dit uit? Plus-minus 25%.

Ek sien. KRUISONUERVRAGING DEUR MNR.COETZEE: Mnr. Roux, die dokument wat bloot net aan u getoon is in die getuiebank, waar word

dit opgestel? Die een dokument was deur

ons opgestel, in ons kantoor en die ander dokument is in Duitsland opgestel as verpak-kingslyste."

7

Roux's evidence was not contradicted and on his evidencethe trial court and the court a quo both found that theconsignment was not covered by clause 5 since, as MYBURGHAJ said in the court a quo:

" on the evidence at the most 97 items

could possibly be regarded as urgent and then it is still a moot point whether the component parts qualified by repairs of machinery and/or mechanical installa-tions could refer to a motor vehicle. I will accept that that is a possibility. But that does not help the appellants in any way because the majority of the items in the container were not needed urgently in any way."

In this court appellant's counsel argued -

(1) that it was for the State to prove that the cargo was not covered by the permit, which entailed (2) that it was accordingly for the State to prove that the parts which appellant con-veyed were not urgently required for the immediate repair of defective machinery;

8

(3) that Roux's evidence relating to the ques-tion of urgency was largely inadmissible; (4) that the onus resting on the State was ac-cordingly not discharged; and (5) that it was in any event established that it was impossible for first appellant to comply with the provisions of its permit.

There is no need to dwell at any length on any part of the argument. (1) and (2) are obviously correct. (3) is also correct but Roux's admissible evidence reveals that the parts would be taken into stock and "vandaar weer teen aanvraag vanaf ons takke en ons handelaars word dit weer versend aan takke en handelaars". On this evidence there was no urgency at all. Later in his evidence (after referring to the waybills) Roux did say that 97 line items were urgently required by his company's branches and dealers but it is an open question whether urgency of this nature is the type of urgency which clause 5 of the permit requires.

9

And even if the 97 items were indeed covered by the per-mit it is quite clear, as the court a quo pointed out,that the remaining items (representing about 75% of thecargo) were not urgently required. The State did, there-fore, discharge the onus.

Appellant's counsel relied for his fifth submissionon another part of Roux's evidence. When asked in cross-examination whether it was physically possible when thegoods arrived in Durban to determine "waar is die drin-gende goed verpak", he said :"Nee, omrede dit binne diehouer in kratte is. Want dan moet ons die hele krat ver-

skeep kry anders is dit addisionele kostes en die tipe

van ding daaraan verbonde om dit uit te kry". His evi-

dence in re-examination reads as follows:

"Mnr. Roux, u sê dit is nie moontlik om in die hawe vas te stel in watter krat die noodsaaklike of dan die nodige items is

nie? Jammer, ek glo nie ek het myself

dan reg beskryf nie, dit is wel moontlik om vas te stel in watter krat dit is maar die krat is weer verpak in 'n houer en om dan daardie houer oop te maak, kratte uit te kry, die item uit 'n krat uit te kry is

10

basies 'n onmoontlike saak as sulks.

Hoekom sê u dit is basies onmoontlik? Omrede ... (kom tussenbeide)

Dit is 'n groot klomp werk? Dit is 'n

groot klomp werk, dit is addisionele koste, dit is, in hierdie geval is dit 400 lyn items wat dan basies moet uitkom of 42 kratte wat uit die houer moes uitkom om dan byvoorbeeld kom ons sê een item uit 'n krat uit te kry, 97 lyn items wat ons hier gehad het kon in 42 verskillende kratte gewees het. So basies die hele besending sou dan moes uitgepak geword het om daardie items by te kom."

Assuming this to be a case in which the defence of impossibility may be raised, it is plainly not one in which it can be raised successfully. The only reason why the crates could not be unpacked, was an economic one. The law does not recognise this kind of impossi-bility. (Rex v Canestra 1951(2) S A 317 (A) at 324H)

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

J J F HEFER JA MILNE JA ) EKSTEEN JA ) CONCUR.