Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Law of Persons 144 - Case Law - Coggle Diagram
Law of Persons 144 - Case Law
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND v MTATI (2005)
Facts
A pregnant woman was seriously injured when a motor vehicle collided with her
The accident was caused by the negligence of the driver in question
The child was born with brain injuries and a mental disability
The father instituted a claim on behalf of the child against RAF
Pleas of appellant
Unborn child is not a person (legal subject), not entitled to compensation
Because the unborn child was not a person, the driver owed no duty of care towards her
Legal questions
Does Z have a claim against RAF for damages resulting from the disabilities
Should such an action be allowed by using the nasciturus fiction, or by using the ordinary principles of delict?
Judgement
SCA decided that it would intolerable if our law did not grant an action for prenatal injuries and that such an action should be based on the law of delict. The appeal was unsuccessful.
Ratio decidendi
The court held, that according to the ordinary principles of delict, unlawfulness and damage are separate elements for delictual liability and that the child's delictual rights of action becomes complete when he or she is born alive. The assertion that the driver of the vehicle did not own Z a legal duty because she had not yet been born, must be rejected
As a result of the judgment, all future claims for prenatal injuries will have to be based on the ordinary principles of delict and not the nasciturus fiction. Nasciturus fiction will still apply in other areas of law.
CHRISTIAN LAWYERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA v MINISTER OF HEALTH (1998)
Facts
The plaintiff sought an order declaring the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act (CToP) unconstitutional, striking it down in its entirety
Plaintiff's reasoning
Life begins before conception, therefore ToP is a violation of S11 of the Constitution
"Everyone has the right to life"
Defendant's reasoning
Foetus is not a bearer of rights ito S11 of the Constitution
Legal question
Does the wording "everyone" or "every person" in the Constitution include an unborn child (as a legal subject), from the moment of conception?
Ratio decidendi
Judge held that the question is not one to be answered by medicine, but by proper interpretation of S11 of the Constitution
If drafters of Constitution had intended to protect the foetus, specific reference to the protection of the foetus would've been made in the BoR, Section 28.
Judgement
The court held that to afford legal personality to the foetus would impinge to a lesser or greater extent on the rights of human dignity, life, privacy, religion, belief, opinion and healthcare
The court thus concluded that the particulars of the claim fail to make out a cause of action and the exception must succeed.
EX PARTE PIETERS (1993)
Facts
The applicant's father appeared in 1975 (18 years prior)
The applicant's mother died and left a sum of money to the father
The applicant applied for the court to either a) an order of presumption of death or b) an order compelling the Master of the HC to effect payment to him and his siblings
There was no evidence to indicate that the applicant's father is possibly dead, except his age (73 years old)
Judgement
The court did not issue the presumption of death order, but authorised the Master of HC to distribute the money equally between the applicant and his siblings without the necessity of providing security
The argument is not strong enough to order a presumption of death order
Legal question
Under what circumstances would the court order a presumption of death order?
Ratio decidendi
The court held that, taking all the information into account, the information was not enough to presume that the person in question is dead.
Re Beaglehole - no rule which require the court to presume death only on the lapse of years
EX PARTE STOTER (1996)
Facts
Applicant applied for presumption of death for his brother who had disappeared two years prior (2 years)
His vehicle had disappeared, no money had been withdrawn from his account during his period of absence
The brother had been known to suffer from depression the week prior to his absence, and suffered in general from severe blood pressure
Brother very dependent on friends and family
No evidence could be brought forward to illustrate in what manner his death may have occured
Legal question
Whether the particular circumstances in question would allow for presumption of death despite a very short amount of time having passed
Ratio decidendi
Joe had been actively employed before disappearance, only 60 years old (60 years)
Health was not in a frail state, apart from above mentioned problems
Age is not a contributing factor
Vehicle - drove himself, no evidence of abduction
Two years - very short time period in comparison to Ex Parte Pieters
Obiter dicta
Death was presumed in Ex Parte Engelbrecht after 35 years of absence
Judgement
Relief is denied and rule nisi is discharged
VAN DYK v SAR&H (1956)
Minor entered into a contract without the guardian's full knowledge of the terms
Father does not have to know all the specific terms because the father knew the nature of the contract
Thus informed consent, knows type of contract
Contract of Employment (standard contract)
FOUCHE v BATTENHAUSEN (1939)
Minor concludes a contract before his father was aware of the precise terms - but agreed afterwards
The payment then defaulted - Court stated that if guardian knows that a minor has obtained a car under hire purchase, that this is sufficient knowledge
Fraud barred from use of Restitutio in integram
Father was aware of essential terms - e.g. monthly installments (sufficient knowledge)
Appeal was dismissed
WOOD v DAVIES (1934)
Facts
Plaintiff inherited money when he was minor
The terms stated that the money would remain in a trust and that the plaintiff would be entitled to the interest on capital
During minority plaintiff's guardian bought a house on plaintiff's behalf
The payments were paid with the interest on capital
When plaintiff became of age, large amount was still unpaid
Plaintiff claimed cancellation of contract and repayments of amounts he had paid
Plaintiff alleged that contract was prejudicial to him
Legal question
Did the minor's legal guardian have the authority to enter the contract on the minor's behalf?
Was the contract prejudicial towards the minor?
Was minor entitled to restitution in integrum?
Ratio decidendi
Contract was prejudicial towards minor
a) property was bought for more than it's worth
b) imposed liabilities on plaintiff he attained when he became a major
Judgement
Plaintiff is entitled to restitution in integrum
Cancellation for cancelation of contract of sale and return of payments made on the minor's behalf, together with interest
Defendant entitled to be placed in status quo
Plaintiff must account defendant for use and occupation of property
Judgement in favour of plaintiff
KLVC v SDI (2015)(SCA)
Facts
The appellant and the first respondent are the biological parents of a minor child
Parties never married or lived together
First respondent has been identified as the father at all material times
While the first respondent was briefly in America, the appellant relocated to England without informing or consulting the first respondent
First respondent applied to UK HC of Justice, family division ito Hague convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for order directing appellant to return S to South Africa
Basis that it was a breach of the first respondent's PRRs
Appellant opposed application
Stated that first respondent was not exercising "rights of custody", be exposed to psychological harm if returned to SA
English court unable to decide, referred case back to SA
Ruled in first respondent's favour
Appellant appealed this judgement
Legal question
Whether ito S21(1)(b) of Children's Act, the first respondent had acquired full PRRs in respect of the child as envisaged in S18(2)(c) prior to the removal
Ratio decidendi
The appellant relied on the decision in PRS v DAL that stated that all three requirements as stipulated in the Children's Act need to be met for an unmarried father to require full PRRs
She asserted that the FR had only met one of theses three requirements - consenting to being identified as the child's father (made no attempts to maintain in any way)
Court a quo found that all requirements had been met
*"Contributes" and "reasonable period of time"
Important to not discriminate against unmarried fathers
Father showed that he was willing to be involved in child's upbringing
Mother refused Father be at doctor's appointments and birth, time together wasn't allowed
Father tried to spend time with child and introduce to family
Contributed R14 000 over 4 months
Judgement
Appellant should be made to pay the costs of the appeal, clear attempt to deny PRRs of first respondent
Appeal dismissed with costs
GRINDAL v GRINDAL (1997)
Facts
Applicant (wife) sues respondent (husband) for a divorce by edictal citation
App emigrated to Aus to live with husband, abandoning domicile of origin in South Africa
Choice of domicile is now Aus
Couple visits England, things don't work out and wife wants divorce
Wife stays in England and takes up temporary job, but wants to return to SA
Legal question
Whether domicile of origin can automatically be revived, which then gives South African jurisdiction this matter
Legal rule
Court shall have jurisdiction in divorce if parties or either of parties is domiciled in area of jurisdiction of the Court on the date which the action is instituted
Application of legal rule
Domicile of choice requires to be lawfully and physically present
South African Court has no jurisdiction of the matter, because she is not domiciled in South Africa. Only when wife acquires domicile in SA again, can she renew the application and proceed with the case