Tshabalala v Minister of Police (77421/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 331 (8 June 2017)

Tshabalala v Minister of Police (77421/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 331 (8 June 2017)

The court held that the application for damages could not proceed in its current form because the supporting affidavits and expert report did not comply with the practice requirements for evidence in default judgment applications for unliquidated damages. Specifically, the expert report was not on oath, did not include the qualifications of the author, and did not provide sufficiently motivated expert opinions. The court found that, in the absence of proper evidence, it could not consider or award damages. The application was therefore removed from the roll, with costs reserved, and the applicant was directed to prepare a proper application with compliant expert evidence if she wished to...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 331
Parties
Applicant: N E Tshabalala; Respondent: Minister of Police
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 2017
Case Number
77421/2014
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment Application / Application for Quantum Following Default Judgment on Merits; Hearing in Unopposed Motion Court
Outcome
Application removed from the roll due to insufficient evidence; costs reserved.
Judges
Mothle
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Loss of Support, Loss of Consortium, Quantum of Damages, Expert Evidence, Affidavit Practice
Civil Procedure Delict Default Judgment Loss of Support Loss of Consortium Quantum of Damages Expert Evidence Affidavit Practice

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N E Tshabalala

Applicant

Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Default Judgment Application / Application for Quantum Following Default Judgment on Merits; Hearing in Unopposed Motion Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for damages (quantum) can proceed despite a pending rescission application.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence presented by affidavit and expert report is sufficient to support an award for unliquidated damages.
  3. 3 Whether the application complies with the practice requirements for expert evidence in default judgment applications.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application for damages could not proceed in its current form because the supporting affidavits and expert report did not comply with the practice requirements for evidence in default judgment applications for unliquidated damages. Specifically, the expert report was not on oath, did not include the qualifications of the author, and did not provide sufficiently motivated expert opinions. The court found that, in the absence of proper evidence, it could not consider or award damages. The application was therefore removed from the roll, with costs reserved, and the applicant was directed to prepare a proper application with compliant expert evidence if she wished to...

Court Disposition

Application removed from the roll due to insufficient evidence; costs reserved.

Orders

  • This application is removed from the roll.
  • The application shall not be re-enrolled in its current form and without service to the Respondent.