Federated Employers Fire & General Insurance Co Ltd and Another v McKenzie

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Ogilvie Thompson JA, Rumpff JA, Holmes JA, Jansen JA and Trollip JA
• Judgment Date: 29 May 1969
• Hearing Date: 22 May 1969
• Court: Appellate Division

Holmes, J.A.:

The appellant insurance companies seek to appeal against the quantum of general damages, namely R14,300, awarded to the respondent by CLOETE, J., in the East London Circuit Local Division. The total is made up as follows:

Holmes JA

R1,100 for future medical and hospital expenses.

R1,200 for future loss of earnings.

R12,000 for pain, suffering, loss of amenities of life and the impairment of health.

A Others items, totalling a few hundred rand, are not in issue and it is not necessary to mention them.

It is necessary first to deal with an opposed petition for condonation. The appellants, although they filed a notice of appeal timeously in accordance with Rule 5 (1) of the Rules of this Court, failed to lodge the necessary copies of the record within three months of the date of B the judgment, as required by Rule 5 (4) (b).

I pause here to point out that the condition of the Bench copies of the appellants' petition for condonation leaves a good deal to be desired. It includes a photostat copy of the judgment of the trial Court, 46 pages in length, the reproduction of which is bad, blurred, certainly C not clear, and in places barely legible. This is a non-observance of Rule 5 (7) of the Rules of this Court which, read with the definition of 'Typed' in Rule 1, requires the typing, or other permissible method of representation to be clear. Furthermore, the annexures to the petition include nine pages of copies of letters between the attorneys. The paper of these pages is thin to the point of flimsiness. This is a D non-compliance with Rule 5 (7), which requires the paper to be 'stout'. The only explanation which counsel for the appellants could give of all this was that the petition had to be prepared quickly, with a view to lodging it as soon as possible. Although the general standard of the records in appeals before this Court is commendably high, the Court has E more than once had to draw attention to cases of laxity, particularly in regard to photostatic reproduction. The most recent cases are Estate Woolf v Johns, 1968 (4) SA 492 (AD) at pp. 493G - H; The Chief Registrar of Deeds v Hamilton-Brown, [*] 31st March, 1969; and S. Kgobane F and Another v Minister of Justice and Another, 26th May, 1969. [*1] It is to be hoped that the remarks in these cases will be heeded, and that it will not become necessary to apply any sanction, for example in the matter of costs.

In considering petitions for...