Wambach v Maizecor Industries (Edms) Bpk (505/1991) [1993] ZASCA 28; 1993 (2) SA 669 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 158 (A) (11 March 1993)

Wambach v Maizecor Industries (Edms) Bpk (505/1991) [1993] ZASCA 28; 1993 (2) SA 669 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 158 (A) (11 March 1993)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to prove it was the owner of the vehicles involved in the collision. The evidence established that the vehicles were registered and purchased in the name of a subsidiary, Maizecor Bemarkingsmaatskappy (Edms) Bpk, and there was no evidence of transfer of ownership or rights to the respondent. The fact that the respondent's directors controlled both companies and could decide on the use and disposal of assets did not make the vehicles the property of the respondent. The court rejected the respondent's reliance on English authorities regarding the lifting of the corporate veil, finding that there was no basis for disregarding the...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 28
Parties
Appellant: Claude C Wambach; Respondent: Maizecor Industries (Edms) Bpk
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 March 1993
Case Number
505/1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; absolution from the instance granted with costs.
Judges
Van Heerden, Smalberger, Eksteen, F H Grosskopf, Van Coller
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Corporate Separateness, Burden of Proof, Absolution From the Instance
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Locus Standi Corporate Separateness Burden of Proof Absolution From the Instance

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claude C Wambach

Appellant

Maizecor Industries (Edms) Bpk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent proved ownership of the vehicles involved in the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had locus standi to claim damages.
  3. 3 Whether absolution from the instance should have been granted at trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to prove it was the owner of the vehicles involved in the collision. The evidence established that the vehicles were registered and purchased in the name of a subsidiary, Maizecor Bemarkingsmaatskappy (Edms) Bpk, and there was no evidence of transfer of ownership or rights to the respondent. The fact that the respondent's directors controlled both companies and could decide on the use and disposal of assets did not make the vehicles the property of the respondent. The court rejected the respondent's reliance on English authorities regarding the lifting of the corporate veil, finding that there was no basis for disregarding the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; absolution from the instance granted with costs.

Orders

  • The order of the trial court is set aside and replaced with: 'Absolution from the instance with costs is granted.'
  • The respondent's application for condonation of late filing of power of attorney is granted, and the respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.