Shongoane v Segabetla and Another (18284/2004) [2009] ZAGPPHC 147 (20 November 2009)

Shongoane v Segabetla and Another (18284/2004) [2009] ZAGPPHC 147 (20 November 2009)

The court found that the second defendant's denial of seeing the herd of cattle was contradicted by his own signed statement and the plaintiff's evidence. The presence of cattle created a foreseeable risk, and the second defendant should have adjusted his speed and kept a proper lookout. The defence of sudden emergency was rejected as a fabrication, not supported by the plea or evidence. The plaintiff's version was found more probable and credible. Consequently, the second defendant was negligent, and both defendants were held jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's proven damages, less the amount already paid by the Road Accident Fund.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 147
Parties
Plaintiff: Molefe Caiphus Shongoane; Defendant: S. Segabetla; Defendant: M. M. Segabetla
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 2009
Case Number
18284/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Trial on Merits
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeds on the merits; defendants held jointly and severally liable for proven damages, less R 25 000 paid by the Road Accident Fund.
Judges
A. P. Ledwaba
Legal Topics
Negligence, Motor Vehicle Accident, Joint and Several Liability, Sudden Emergency Defence
Delict Negligence Motor Vehicle Accident Joint and Several Liability Sudden Emergency 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molefe Caiphus Shongoane

Plaintiff

S. Segabetla

Defendant

M. M. Segabetla

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Trial on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant was negligent in driving the vehicle resulting in the collision with a cow.
  2. 2 Whether the defence of sudden emergency applies to absolve the second defendant of liability.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second defendant's denial of seeing the herd of cattle was contradicted by his own signed statement and the plaintiff's evidence. The presence of cattle created a foreseeable risk, and the second defendant should have adjusted his speed and kept a proper lookout. The defence of sudden emergency was rejected as a fabrication, not supported by the plea or evidence. The plaintiff's version was found more probable and credible. Consequently, the second defendant was negligent, and both defendants were held jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's proven damages, less the amount already paid by the Road Accident Fund.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeds on the merits; defendants held jointly and severally liable for proven damages, less R 25 000 paid by the Road Accident Fund.

Orders

  • The first and second defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff's proven damages, less R 25 000 or agreed damages.
  • The first and second defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff's costs.