Sekhu v Makhathini and Another (A311/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 687 (22 July 2024)

Sekhu v Makhathini and Another (A311/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 687 (22 July 2024)

The court found that the trial court correctly applied the law regarding mutually destructive versions and the onus of proof. The appellant failed to discharge the onus, as her version was not shown to be more probable than the respondent's. The evidence did not establish negligence on the part of the first respondent, and the trial court's findings regarding speed, concentration, and the point of impact were supported by the inspection in loco and the absence of expert evidence. The argument regarding the 'proverbial 1% negligence' was misplaced, as the collision was not a rear-end accident. The appeal was dismissed as the trial court's decision was not erroneous.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 687
Parties
Appellant: Mmapula Herminah Sekhu; Respondent: Thami Nathaniel Makhathini; Respondent: Trump Tyres CC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 July 2024
Case Number
A311/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
N P Mali, G N Moshoana
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Collision, Negligence, Onus of Proof, Mutually Destructive Versions, Damages
Delict Civil Procedure Motor Vehicle Collision Negligence Onus of Proof Mutually Destructive Versions Damages

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mmapula Herminah Sekhu

Appellant

Thami Nathaniel Makhathini

Respondent

Trump Tyres CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in finding that the accident was not attributable to the first respondent's negligence.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant discharged the onus of proof in the presence of mutually destructive versions.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court correctly assessed the evidence regarding right of way and speed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court correctly applied the law regarding mutually destructive versions and the onus of proof. The appellant failed to discharge the onus, as her version was not shown to be more probable than the respondent's. The evidence did not establish negligence on the part of the first respondent, and the trial court's findings regarding speed, concentration, and the point of impact were supported by the inspection in loco and the absence of expert evidence. The argument regarding the 'proverbial 1% negligence' was misplaced, as the collision was not a rear-end accident. The appeal was dismissed as the trial court's decision was not erroneous.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.