About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2012
>>
[2012] ZAGPJHC 255
|
|
Dessie v Firstrand Bank Ltd (32414/12) [2012] ZAGPJHC 255 (28 November 2012)
IN THE
HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (
SOUTH GAUTENG
)
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO
:
32414/12
DATE
:
2012-11-28
I
n
the matter between
RAMNATH
DESSIE
...................................................
Plaintiff
and
FIRSTRAND BANK
LIMITED
....................................
Defendant
J U D G M E N T
WILLIS
,
J
:
[1]
There
should be a motto,
ex curia
Johannesburgensis semper aliquid novi
: out
of the Johannesburg High Court there is always something new. This
is an application in which an exception has been taken.
[2] The claim of
the plaintiff is bizarre, to say the least. The plaintiff's claim is
based on the fact that his wife had an extramarital
affair with
someone while his wife was working at FirstRand Bank Limited. The
plaintiff’s claim rests on the premise that
FirstRand Bank
Limited are somehow responsible for his pain and suffering as a
result of this affair.
[3] I know that
litigants can be imaginative here in Johannesburg, but this is one
that deserves a special prize. There is no such
claim recognised in
our common law. I am quite confident that, no matter how much judges
of this division may try to develop the
common law, we are not, in
this country, going to start allowing awards of damages against
employers because people fall in love
while they are at work. This
happens all the time. It has happened, and will no doubt continue to
happen until the cows come
home.
[4] The exception
is well taken. The defendant has now applied for a postponement on
the basis of indisposition, but I fully agree
with Advocate
Rose
,
who appears for the excipient, that there is no point in
procrastinating with this matter. There is no point in prolonging
the
pain and the agony.
[5] The application
for a postponement is dismissed. Counsel for the plaintiff, seeking
the postponement, was not instructed to
argue the merits of the
matter. The merits of the matter are clearly unmeritorious and,
accordingly, the defendant's exception
is upheld. The plaintiff is to
pay the defendant's costs in this exception.
_________________________
WILLIS J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT