High Court of South Africa Eastern Cape, Port Elizabeth

Sort by:

305 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
March 2011
Marais v Road Accident Fund (2886/2009) [2011] ZAECPEHC 9 (29 March 2011) Plaintiff entitled to damages where the insured driver entered a robot-controlled intersection on red; plaintiff not negligent. * Road Accident Fund – liability under s 17 – collision at robot-controlled intersection – vehicle entering on red signal held negligent. * Credibility – assessment of eyewitness evidence; preference for plaintiff and police witness over insured driver and passenger. * Duty of care – driver with green signal not obliged to anticipate unlawful red-light entrants; contributory negligence not established. * Costs – defendant ordered to pay taxed costs pertaining to merits (including one inspection in loco) with interest; quantum postponed sine die.	29 March 2011
February 2011
Judd v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (CA 149/2010) [2011] ZAECPEHC 4 (17 February 2011) A municipality’s failure to implement its pavement maintenance procedures was wrongful and culpable, entitling the appellant to damages. Municipal liability for omissions; pavements maintenance; wrongfulness determined by legal convictions of the community; distinction between wrongfulness and culpa; application of Kruger v Coetzee; negligent implementation of maintenance procedures v. system design.	17 February 2011
Pillay v Nogcantsi (2310/2007) [2011] ZAECPEHC 2 (1 February 2011) Intermittent incapacitating seizures and frontal-lobe damage justified appointment of a curator ad litem to protect the plaintiff’s litigation capacity. Curator ad litem — capacity to litigate — frontal lobe injury, seizures and fluctuating cognition may necessitate curator despite gainful employment; Rule 57 procedural requirements not peremptory; costs — applicant to nominate curator; appointment safeguards to protect litigation integrity.	1 February 2011
July 2010
S v Van Wyk and Others (CA&R 15/2010) [2010] ZAECPEHC 1 (23 July 2010) A charge sheet’s form does not preclude evidence from establishing Schedule 5/6 jurisdiction; first appellant’s bail refused, second granted. Bail — section 60(11) Criminal Procedure Act — determination whether accused is "charged" with Schedule 5 or 6 offence may be informed by evidence and common‑cause facts, not charge sheet alone; Sexual Offences Amendment Act — child under 12 incapable of consenting, sexual penetration may constitute rape under s3 (Schedule 6); statutory rape (ss15–16) applies to 12–15 year‑olds and does not necessarily attract Schedule 6; bail refusal upheld for main accused where prima facie case and risk of reoffending/witness interference proven; bail granted where State fails to prove s60(4) grounds.	23 July 2010
April 1972
Kramer and Others v S (16/72) [1972] ZAECPEHC 1 (4 April 1972) First and second appellants’ murder convictions upheld under common-purpose liability; third appellant’s conviction reduced and sentencing remitted. Criminal law – Common purpose – third category liability where one co-accused likely inflicted fatal wound – foreseeability and recklessness by accomplices; Evidence – credibility of co-accused and inferences from conduct after offence; Sentencing – youth and subordinate role require probation report before final sentence.	4 April 1972