Van Rhyner v Minister of Safety and Security (3091/09) [2011] ZAECGHC 35 (4 August 2011)

Van Rhyner v Minister of Safety and Security (3091/09) [2011] ZAECGHC 35 (4 August 2011)

The court found that the applicant's and his witness's evidence was of poor quality, containing numerous improbabilities and inconsistencies, and did not discharge the onus of proof. The respondent was therefore not obliged to call Van Niekerk to rebut the applicant's version. The court held that the credibility findings and the assessment of uncontradicted evidence were consistent with established legal principles. Even if the court erred in considering the expert's summary, the overall evidence demonstrated the applicant was untruthful and unreliable. There was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion, and the application for leave to appeal was...

Citation
[2011] ZAECGHC 35
Parties
Applicant: Van Rhyner; Respondent: Minister of Safety and Security
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 August 2011
Case Number
3091/09
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Y Ebrahim
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Assessment of Evidence, Onus of Proof, Adverse Inference, Credibility of Witnesses
Civil Procedure Delict Leave to Appeal Assessment of Evidence Onus of Proof Adverse Inference Credibility of Witnesses

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

Van Rhyner

Applicant

Minister of Safety and Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the judgment and order for costs.
  2. 2 Whether the court erred in finding the applicant and his witness not credible.
  3. 3 Whether the court erred in assessing uncontradicted evidence and in not drawing an adverse inference from the respondent's failure to call a key witness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's and his witness's evidence was of poor quality, containing numerous improbabilities and inconsistencies, and did not discharge the onus of proof. The respondent was therefore not obliged to call Van Niekerk to rebut the applicant's version. The court held that the credibility findings and the assessment of uncontradicted evidence were consistent with established legal principles. Even if the court erred in considering the expert's summary, the overall evidence demonstrated the applicant was untruthful and unreliable. There was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion, and the application for leave to appeal was...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.