September and Another v Henney (A150/2007) [2009] ZAFSHC 74 (4 March 2009)

September and Another v Henney (A150/2007) [2009] ZAFSHC 74 (4 March 2009)

The court found that the magistrate's reasoning was sound and supported by the probabilities. The evidence of the plaintiff and independent witnesses was consistent and credible, and the point of impact was established on the vacant piece of land. The second defendant's version was improbable and unsupported by the facts. The court held that the plaintiff took reasonable evasive action under imminent danger and that there was no contributory negligence on his part. The appeal was dismissed as there was no basis to interfere with the magistrate's findings.

Citation
[2009] ZAFSHC 74
Parties
Appellant: J.J. September; Appellant: P.M. Beukes; Respondent: R.R. Henney
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 March 2009
Case Number
A150/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
C.J. Musi, K.J. Moloi
Legal Topics
Negligence, Motor Vehicle Collision, Credibility of Witnesses, Contributory Negligence
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Motor Vehicle Collision Credibility of Witnesses Contributory Negligence

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.J. September

Appellant

P.M. Beukes

Appellant

R.R. Henney

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the collision was caused by the exclusive negligence of the first defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate erred in her credibility findings regarding the witnesses.
  3. 3 Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the magistrate's reasoning was sound and supported by the probabilities. The evidence of the plaintiff and independent witnesses was consistent and credible, and the point of impact was established on the vacant piece of land. The second defendant's version was improbable and unsupported by the facts. The court held that the plaintiff took reasonable evasive action under imminent danger and that there was no contributory negligence on his part. The appeal was dismissed as there was no basis to interfere with the magistrate's findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.