About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZAGPPHC 13
|
|
Sandberg Transport Bk t/a Sandberg v African Truck Accident Repairs (Edms) Bpk t/a Hermans Truck Accident Repairs (3523/2006) [2009] ZAGPPHC 13 (25 March 2009)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH GAUTENG,
HIGH COURT)
DATE: 25 MARCH 2009
CASE NO: 3523/2006
Not reportable
In
the matter between:
SANDBERG TRANSPORT BK
t/a SANDBERG PLAINTIFF
vs.
AFRICAN
TRUCK ACCIDENT REPAIRS
(EDMS)
BPK t/a HERMANS TRUCK ACCIDENT REPAIRS DEFENDANT
_____________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
_____________________________________________________
BOTHA J:
The
plaintiff, Sandberg Transport CC, trading as Sandberg (Sandberg)
instituted two claims against the defendant, African Truck
Accidents
Repairs (Pty) Ltd trading as Herman’s Truck Accident Repairs
(Hermans).
Both claims relate
to a Mercedes Benz diesel truck of the plaintiff that was involved in
a collision.
The first claim is
for an amount of R49 612.80 and it represents the reasonable cost of
correcting defective repair work done by
the defendant.
The second claim
is for an amount of R46 377.80 and represents consequential loss
sustained as a result of the fact that the vehicle
could not be used
after it had been repaired by the defendant.
The plaintiff alleged that the
vehicle was taken to the defendant and that the defendant issued a
quotation for repairing the vehicle.
Then it is alleged
that the parties orally agreed on 5 August 2005 that the defendant
would repair the truck; that the repairs
had to be done by 18 August
2005, which date was extended to 25 August 2005; that the repairs
would be done in a workmanlike manner;
that the plaintiff would pay
the excess payable in terms of its insurance policy; and that the
insurance company would pay the
balance.
It is alleged that the excess was
paid on 2 September 2005 and that the vehicle was returned on that
day. It is alleged that on
2 September 2005 the vehicle was in a
defective condition and returned to the defendant.
It is alleged that the vehicle was
returned to the plaintiff on 6 October 2005 but that on 7 October
2005 it was found that the
defendant’s servants had assembled
the top torque rod in the wrong position with the result that the
front differential tilted
too much, causing vibration and the leaking
of oil.
It is alleged that
this constituted a breach of contract and that the defendant was
aware of the fact that the plaintiff needed
the truck to transport
sand; that it was one of three trucks of that size; and that if not
delivered in time, the plaintiff would
suffer loss by having to use
smaller trucks.
The defendant admitted that:
it was requested to repair the truck;
that the insurance company and the
plaintiff was given a quotation;
that at the end of July 2005 the
plaintiff and the defendant agreed that the truck would be repaired
according to the quotation;
that the repairs would take two to
three weeks subject to final approval by the insurer;
that the plaintiff would pay the
excess and the insurer the balance;
that the repairs had to be effected
in a workmanlike manner.
It is admitted
that the vehicle was returned on 2 September 2005 after repairs had
been effected and that it was returned to the
defendant on 7
September 2005 with minor defects that were eliminated. It is
admitted that the vehicle was returned on 4 October
2005.
It is alleged that the vehicle was
repaired in accordance with the plaintiff’s mandate as approved
by the insurer.
In the alternative it is alleged that
the defects were not related to the collision and were related to the
general maintenance
of the truck.
In general the allegations not
admitted were denied.
At the pre-trial
conference it was agreed that if the top torque rod was fitted in the
wrong position, the front differential would
tilt too much, causing
the yokes of the propshaft to hit against each other and extending
the gear propshaft to its maximum. The
propshaft would run at an
unacceptable angle, damaging the oil seals and causing oil leakage.
The gearbox output bearing and the
differential bearing could also be
damaged.
The plaintiff
called its member, Mr Schlesinger, Mr S Candasamy, its workshop
manager, Mr Willers, Mr M.F du Toit and Mr J.P Prinsloo.
Mr Schlesinger testified that he had
a telephone conversation with Mr André Botha of the defendant
on 5 August 2005. He
discussed the quotation, A1-5. They agreed on
a date of completion namely 18 August 2005. On 17 August 2005 he was
telephoned
and told that the subcontractor working on the
differential would not be ready. He was asked to extend the date of
completion
to 25 August 2005. He agreed.
On 23 August 2005
he happened to visit the defendant and he was told that the vehicle
would be ready on 25 August 2005.
On 25 August 2005 he was told that
the vehicle was not ready. He asked that the defendant deliver it in
Louis Trichardt.
On 2 September 2005 he was told that
the vehicle was ready. During the day he was told that it had broken
down near Potgietersrus
owing to an oil leak on the differential. At
about midnight the vehicle was delivered.
On Monday 5 September 2005 he
inspected the vehicle and found serious defects. They are tabulated
in his letter dated 7 September
2005 (A6-7).
The vehicle was returned to the
defendant.
On 27 September 2005 he was called
and asked to inspect the vehicle at the defendant’s premises.
He went there and found
certain defects.
On 12 September 2005 the defendant
sent a letter (A8- 9) in which the defendant attributed the problems
with the repairs to the
amount of modifications on the vehicle. He
never effected modifications on the vehicle. It was a 1995 model
that he bought in
2002.
On 10 October 2005 the defendant sent
another letter in which it was alleged that the repairs were
complicated by poor maintenance.
See A10-11.
According to the letter the truck was
slipping out of top gear, which never was a problem with the vehicle.
On 4 October 2005 the vehicle was
returned to the plaintiff. On 5 October 2005 it was inspected by his
workshop manager, Mr Willers.
He reported that it was vibrating. He
telephoned one Tony at the defendant. He said that he would send a
technician.
Mr Willers said
that it appeared that the torque rod had been installed incorrectly.
He referred to two photographs on A25. He
telephoned Tony again and
told him that he would also get Mr Candasamy of Mototech in Louis
Trichardt to look at the vehicle.
Mr Candasamy came to look at the
vehicle and also Mr Prinsloo of Specialist Propshaft Services
Pietersburg CC (SPSP).
In view of what Mr
Candasamy told him about a conversation between him and Tony, he gave
Mr Candasamy instructions to effect repairs
in terms of a quotation,
A27. The amount of the quotation was R31 464.00. He also had to pay
SPSP R18 148.80 for subcontracted
work. See A15.
The two amounts
make up claim 1.
He explained how
he calculated his claim for consequential loss. See A34. In essence
it was based on the fact that he had to
use more trucks with a
capacity of 5,3 m
3
and
10m
3
to
do work that could have been done by the vehicle in question, that
had a capacity of 20m
3
.
He was asked about
the discount of 10% he allowed on his second claim. That was allowed
because not all the loads collected at
Lombard’s Mine were
offloaded at his depot or stockpile. Some loads were directly
offloaded at the customers.
He had eleven
trucks. Four of them were 20m
3
trucks.
He was referred to
the inscription “Stockpile” on a number of his invoices.
He conceded that he could not say how
many loads were offloaded at
the stockpile. It was the exception that loads were taken directly
to a customer.
He had a fixed price for material on
which he added a transport rate.
He could not say how many clients
were involved in the invoices A38-63 (some 50 invoices).
It was put to him that he could not
with certainty say that his consequential damage amounted to R46
000.00. He conceded that.
He was referred to
the defendant by the person from whom he bought the vehicle.
He argued that the
insurance company, Santam, gave him the go-ahead to proceed with the
repairs. The broker gave him the right
to choose between three
repairers.
It was put to him that there was an
agreement between Santam and the defendant. He agreed.
The distance between Louis Trichardt
and the defendant’s premises was 450 kilometres.
The two differentials on the vehicle
were similar. They were marked HSL7, which denoted size.
The photographs on
A28 were taken by a Mr Fourie on 5 October 2005. His vehicles were
regularly serviced at 10 000 kilometres.
He kept log books. He did
not have them at court.
When he bought the vehicle it had
done 350 000 kilometres. With him it did about 60 000 kilometres a
year.
He decided to send
the vehicle to Mototech because the defendant had had enough
opportunity to repair it.
He denied that the problems with the
vehicle were caused by poor maintenance.
The defendant did not know how many
trucks he had and what their capacities were.
He accepted that the work could only
commence after the approval of the assessor.
He conceded that the defendant might
have been unaware that he would suffer a loss of income.
In re-examination he pointed out that
the quotation was given to him and that he had to sign the discharge
form.
Mr Candasamy testified that he was a
qualified diesel mechanic and gave particulars of his expertise.
When he inspected
the truck he found excessive play on the prop shaft. The angle of
the differential was incorrect. He found
that the front torque rod
had been incorrectly fitted. He explained that with reference to the
photographs on A28. The shiny
portions on photograph 2 showed how
much the prop shaft had come out.
Photograph 66
shows a correct fitting.
He referred to the
two bolts that were painted white. He was told by the defendant’s
expert that they were painted white
so as not to be overlooked.
In view of the
fact that the chassis were sprayed he inferred that they were marked
after the chassis was sprayed. That means
that the torque rod was
fitted after the painting.
It the torque rod
was fitted incorrectly it changed the angle of the differential and
caused a vibration. One would be able to
drive the truck without a
trailer. Eventually it would lead to gear and bearing failure.
In that condition
one could drive the truck 1000-1500 kilometres depending on whether
there was a trailer.
After he received
the vehicle, he telephoned Tony at the defendant. Tony said he
should only replace the seals. He told Mr Schlesinger,
who then
instructed him to repair the vehicle.
His quotation
represented a fair price. He had to buy components in Johannesburg.
His labour charge was three to four times cheaper
than that of
Mercedes Benz.
If one had to fit a dead axle it was
easier to gain access by moving the front differential forward and
moving the rear differential
backward.
It was possible to drop down the dead
axle by releasing the rear springs.
One had to remove
the top torque rod to remove the dead axle. That was the way he
would do it. He conceded, however, that it
was possible to remove
the dead axle without touching the top torque rod.
He could not
remember what his mark-up at the time was. It ranged between 30% and
35%.
He denied that the
plaintiff’s vehicles were poorly maintained. Poor servicing
could not have caused the defects.
His rates were comparable to the
rates charged in rural areas.
Mr M.J Willers testified that in 2005
he was the plaintiff’s workshop manager.
He initially reported the defective
repairs to Mr Schlesinger.
When the vehicle was returned he took
it on a 5 kilometre test drive. He found that it vibrated.
The vehicle gave no trouble before
the collision. He inspected all the plaintiff’s vehicles once
a week.
Mr M.F du Toit is a qualified motor
mechanic and fitter who worked for Specialist Propshaft Services
Pietersburg CC (SPSP).
He was the author of the invoice,
A15. He had to rebuild the whole propshaft. He had to replace the
sliding assembly, the stub
yoke and the universals. He described the
price as market related. His firm had fixed prices at all its
branches. The propshaft
was delivered by Mr Prinsloo, their workshop
manager.
The problem with the propshaft was
that the components were working at wrong angles. They were working
against each other.
The particular
propshaft had been at their firm earlier. Then it was only
lubricated. That service was a few months earlier.
It was a case of
regular service. There was nothing out of the order.
Mr J.P Prinsloo was the branch
manager of SPSP in September-October 2005.
Mr Schlesinger of Sandberg telephoned
him about vibration in the truck.
He went to Louis
Trichardt. He could see that the angle of the propshaft was
incorrect. The torque rod had been fitted incorrectly.
With reference to photograph 2 on A28
he explained that the propshaft pulled out too far.
He told Mr
Schlesinger that it had to be repaired. He fetched the propshaft
from Mototech. Mr du Toit repaired it. It was returned
to Mototech
because the truck was there.
If the torque rod
is fitted incorrectly the angle of the differential is wrong and the
universal joints hit against each other.
The sliding component of
the differential pulls out too far. All this causes vibration.
It
will not be detected immediately. The vibration can disappear at a
certain speed and return at a different speed. One can drive
50-2000
kilometres with such a condition.
When he saw the truck there was an
oil leak under the gear box and under the front differential.
He did not drive
the truck. He was told that there was a vibration. One would not
notice vibration by merely driving to Sandberg’s
gate.
When he saw the
truck the torque rod was incorrectly fitted. The front differential
was tilted.
They worked on the propshaft of the
truck the previous December. He then collected the propshaft. He
did not install it. It
was done by Sandberg.
He saw the truck when he collected
the propshaft. The trucks number was not on the invoice, but on the
job card.
That concluded the
evidence on behalf of the plaintiff.
The defendant’s first witness
was Mr P.M Widlake, the diesel mechanic, who worked on the truck.
At the defendant he did a lot of work
on wheel alignment and chassis straightening.
He removed the
rear differential and the dead axle of the plaintiff’s truck.
He removed the dead axle by lifting the truck
up on a fork lift and
removing the nuts and bolts, thereby causing the axle to drop out.
He did this because it was on the job
card. He did not work on the
front differential because it was not on the job card.
He was referred to
the two white dots visible on photograph 1 on A28. They were raised
at a meeting of experts. He had no reason
to make the white marks.
He cannot remember
what was said at the meeting of experts. He agreed that the truck
was sprayed.
He explained a series of photographs
in the defendant’s bundle marked B. They are B21-28 and relate
to parts of a truck
similar to the plaintiff’s truck.
B23 shows the top
rear torque rod correctly fitted. B24 shows the bolts that are
removed when the dead axle has to be removed.
B26 shows the front
top torque rod correctly fitted. On A28 it is incorrectly fitted.
B27 shows the dead axle. B29 shows it
from underneath.
The shiny ring on the propshaft shown
on photograph 2 of A2 shows that the differential was at an angle.
The propshaft appears
to have been fairly old.
He did not know whether it was easier
to gain access to the dead axle by taking off the top torque rod.
After the repairs on the truck, it
went to the paint shop. Then it was inspected by a Mr Liebenberg.
He did not inspect the top torque
rod. He would not have noticed it. He agreed that he was not the
only person who worked on
the truck. He did not know who else worked
on it.
He agreed that after the initial
repairs it was found that the chassis was not straight and that the
dead axle was bent.
He agreed that he did not check the
truck properly and that the workmanship was not up to standard. He
did not check the dead
axle the first time.
He agreed with
reference to photograph 2 on A2, that one could not say that there
was a lack of maintenance. He agreed that the
broad shining ring was
the result of the torque rod having been fitted incorrectly.
He agreed that bolts are normally
marked before spraying is done. Therefore the white spots must have
been painted on after the
spraying.
The damage on the shiny part must
also have been done after the spraying.
The truck was sprayed before it left
the defendant’s premises the first time.
He did not know that the truck
stopped at Potgietersrus. He did not know that it was slipping out
of top gear.
He agreed that if there was an oil
leak there could have been a problem with the differential.
He did not check the truck out.
He agreed that the two white dots and
the shiny ring was the result of work done on the front torque rod
either at the defendant
or at the plaintiff.
He accepted that the plaintiff had no
reason to work on the truck. The defendant had the opportunity to
work on the truck. He
did not know whether anyone else worked on the
front torque rod.
The dead axle was
replaced with another one. He did not see any modifications on the
truck. If there was a vibration it would
be at the back of the truck
but one would still feel it.
There was nothing
on the job card necessitating the removal of the front torque rod.
Mr Tony Thompson had been at the
defendant since 1988.
The Monday after the truck was
returned the first time, Mr Schlesinger telephoned him and said that
he was not happy. He sent
his representative, Mr Botha, who agreed
to take the truck back.
They picked the truck up and removed
the dead axle. The assessor, Mr O’Donovan, agreed that it
could be replaced.
Mr O’Donovan authorized the
repairs in the first place. After the dead axle had been replaced
the defendant’s driver,
Mr Mokwela, drove the truck back to
Louis Trichardt.
The next day Mr Schlesinger
telephoned to say that there was a vibration. He said that he could
bring the truck back. Mr Schlesinger
asked whether someone in Louis
Trichardt could look at the truck. He agreed. Then Mr Candasamy
telephoned him.
He was referred to
his letter dated 10 October 2005 in which he said that the repair
work was complicated by poor maintenance.
He explained that it was
an old truck.
Mr Botha said that the chassis was
bent. When Mr Candasamy telephoned him he said that he could change
the oil seals. Anything
more would require the approval of the
assessor.
His allegation in his letter that the
repairs were complicated by poor maintenance was based on information
from the defendant’s
workshop manager, Mr Willis.
The same applied
to his reference to modifications in his earlier letter. He accepted
that the client was the owner of the truck,
that he had to be
satisfied with the repairs and that he had to sign the release forms.
The defendant had a contract with Santam.
He agreed that Santam
would not sue the defendant if the work was not done properly.
He agreed that he
knew that the truck stopped at Potgietersrus and that it was slipping
out of gear. It was serious but it was
not part of the quotation.
He agreed that when the truck was
returned work had to be done that did not form part of the quotation.
He knew that if the truck stood still
there would be damage.
He offered to take
the truck back. It was the client’s decision whether to accept
it. He thought that it was reasonable
that the defendant be given a
choice to rectify the complaint.
He was sure that his letter had been
sent before Mr Candasamy was involved.
When it was put to him that he had no
personal knowledge of who worked on the truck he answered that he
worked there. The people
involved were painters, strippers,
assemblers, panel beaters and mechanics, all in all about ten
persons.
The truck was not in the best
condition. The interior of the cabin was shoddy.
Mr P Mokwela
testified that he drove the truck back to Louis Trichardt. He
experienced no problems. When asked about vibrations
he answered
that it was an old truck. If there was a problem he would have
reported
it
to his office. He once received a call from the office to the effect
that he was driving too fast. He expected such an old
truck to be
rusty and slower. It was not rattling or shaky. He was supposed to
travel at 80 kilometres per hour, but he did exceed
that speed.
That concluded the evidence on behalf
of the defendant.
Although Mr Riley,
who appeared for the defendant, elicited some concessions from the
plaintiff’s witnesses to the effect
that the defendant’s
contract was with Santam, it is clear on the evidence that there was
also an agreement between the plaintiff
and the defendant. The fact
that there was an agreement between the defendant and Santam did not
exclude the possibility of the
plaintiff and the defendant concluding
an agreement or agreements relating to such issues as the time for
the completion of the
repairs and the correction of defective work.
That is exactly what happened in this case. In fact it was common
cause on the
pleadings. See paragraph 7 of the plea.
On the facts it
was common cause that after the defendant had effected repairs on the
plaintiff’s truck the truck had a vibration
that was caused by
the incorrect fitting of the top torque rod. It must be accepted
that the vibration was the symptom of parts
that were functioning out
of kilter and causing damage. It must also be accepted that the
repairs effected by Mototech (as partly
subcontracted to SPSP) was
necessary in order to remove the damage caused by the incorrect
fitting of the top torque rod.
The question is who was responsible
for the incorrect fitting of the top torque rod.
Mr Wessels, who appeared for the
plaintiff, clearly demonstrated in his cross-examination of Mr
Widlake, that there were only two
possibilities: either it was done
at the premises of the defendant or at the premises of the plaintiff.
Mr Widlake conceded as
much.
Mr Widlake denied
that he touched the top torque rod and explained that he did not need
to do that in order to remove the dead
axle. His evidence in this
regard was not challenged.
That is, however, not the end of the
matter. The fact is that somebody did tamper with the top torque
rod. The fact that the
bolts were painted white suggests that,
because that is an accepted procedure to ensure that the tightening
of a bolt is not forgotten.
It is clear that that must have been
done after the chassis had been sprayed.
It is clear that
Mr Widlake was not the only person who worked on the truck. About 10
persons were involved including, significantly
strippers and
assemblers.
It is clear that
the vibration was detected very soon after the truck had been
returned to the plaintiff’s premises
for the second time. The cause of the vibration, namely the
incorrect fitting of the top torque rod, was also identified very
soon.
There was simply no reason or
opportunity for the plaintiff to tamper with the top torque rod.
The fact that the
defendant’s driver, Mr Mokwela, did not find reason to complain
about a vibration, is not conclusive.
In the first place, when he
was asked whether there had been a vibration, he answered, somewhat
enigmatically, that it was an old
truck. Then the evidence was that
a distance of in excess of 1000 kilometres could be travelled with
that condition and that the
vibration could temporarily go away.
It is of some
significance that Mr Candasamy’s preferred route of access to
the dead axle was via the torque rod. The dead
axle had to be
removed by the defendant.
If I consider all
the evidence I find that the probabilities favour the scenario that
the incorrect fitting of the torque rod was
done at the premises of
the defendant.
On that basis the
defendant is clearly liable on claim 1.
The evidence of Mr
Candasamy about the reasonableness of his price must be accepted. He
could not remember what his mark-up was,
but the range given by him
was not excessive. He made the point that his labour rates were
significantly lower than those of Mercedes
Benz. Mr Prinsloo’s
evidence about the reasonableness of SPSP’s price was not
seriously challenged. It accorded with
prices charged at other
branches.
Mr Wessels
conceded that 2.5% should be deducted from the claim on the
assumption that the plaintiff could have availed itself
of the cash
discount offered by SPSP. That would reduce claim 1 to R49 159.08.
In respect of claim 2 I allowed an
amendment in conformity with Mr Schlesinger evidence.
The evidence of Mr Schlesinger that
there was an agreement in respect of the time of completion and that
it was extended, was unchallenged.
Mr Riley referred
to the particulars of claim, and more particularly paragraph 12
thereof, in which the following is alleged:
“When
the agreement was concluded between Plaintiff and Defendant,
Defendant was aware of the following facts and the
agreement was
entered into on the basis of these facts:
that Plaintiff needed this truck
to transport sand;
that this was one of three trucks
of that size that Plaintiff had for that purposes;
that should the truck not be
repaired properly and timeously, Plaintiff would be unable to
transport sand as is its profession
and that it would have to use
smaller trucks which had to drive more trips to convey the same
tonnage of sand per day than
the truck in question; and
that it would suffer a loss of
income as a result of the extra transport costs of the smaller
trucks.”
He pointed out
that the defendant was not aware of the fact that the plaintiff had
three (or four as the evidence was) 20m
3
trucks and that the work of the damaged truck would have to be done
less effectively by smaller trucks.
The fact is that
Mr Thompson readily admitted that it was foreseeable that the
defendant would suffer a loss its truck was not
available. In this
type of business it must have been obvious on any basis, that trucks
of this kind were earning money and that
if they were not
operational, there would be a resultant loss of income. That much is
alleged or implicit in paragraph 12.1 of
the particulars of claim.
What the plaintiff
actually claims represents less than the loss of the income of the
truck. It does not allege that it lost work
as a result of the
non-availability of the truck. It alleges by implication that it
could honour all its commitments, but only
by dint of using trucks
that were not as cost effective as the damaged truck. Seen in that
way the loss claimed is actually less
than what was foreseeable in
terms of paragraph 12.1. I agree with Mr Wessels that it was not
necessary that the actual manifestation
of the loss should have been
in the contemplation of the parties. See
BAT
Rhodesia Ltd v Fawcett Security Organisation (Salisburg) Ltd 1972(4)
SA 103 (RS) at 104D.
In
my view the plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of the basis
of its loss in respect of claim 2. Mr Schlesinger, whom
I consider
to be a fair and honest witness, was adamant that his allowance of
10% for direct deliveries was generous. Being in
control of the
plaintiff’s business he should know. I do not think that the
haphazard annotations of the word “stockpile”
detracts
from that.
It is true that Mr
Schlesinger acknowledged that he could not say with certainty that
his consequential damage amounted to R46
000.00. This fair
concession means no more than that one can never calculate damages
with mathematical exactitude. What Mr Schlesinger
has done, was to
give a rational basis for the calculation of his loss, based on
actual volumes transported and the known operating
costs of his
vehicles. For the purposes of proof on a balance of probabilities
that is sufficient. The second claim should therefore
succeed in the
amount of R46 377.80.
That brings me
to the issue of costs. The parties were ad idem that the costs
reserved on 7 March 2008 should be costs in
the cause.
Mr Wessels
contended for costs on a High Court scale. The normal situation is
that a party must sue in the magistrate’s
court if that court
has jurisdiction and that he will only be awarded costs in a High
Court scale if there are circumstances justifying
such an order. In
Keyter
v De Wet NO
1967(1)
SA 20(o) at C-28G
the issue is discussed and instances are given of circumstances that
may justify an award of High Court costs.
In my view there
are special circumstances justifying an award of costs on the High
Court scale. In the first place the total
award is more than R95
000.00. Although I cannot say that the law and the facts were very
complex, it is a fact that the presentation
of the evidence took up
three court days. Argument was addressed on a fourth day. A trial
of this magnitude, if not complexity,
could easily be accommodated in
the High Court where there is a continuous roll for civil trials. In
the magistrate’s court,
as Mr Wessels pointed out, there is no
continuous roll for civil trials, and a lengthy matter can only be
enrolled for a number
of consecutive days by special dispensation.
In this context it must also be
remembered that on a previous occasion it was estimated that this
case would take seven days.
In view of these circumstances I am
therefore of the view that costs should be awarded on the High Court
scale.
The
following order is made:
Judgment
is granted against the defendant for:
Payment of the amount of R49
159.08.
Payment of the amount of R46
377.80.
Interest on the
amounts of R49 159.08 and R46 377.80 at 15.5% per annum from date of
judgment to date of payment.
Costs on the High Court scale
which costs shall include:
The costs reserved on 7 March
2008.
The qualifying
fees of the witnesses Candasamy, du Toit and Prinsloo.
_____________________
C BOTHA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT