Grobler v Potgieter

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Jnc De Villiers J
• Judgment Date: 04 February 1954
• Hearing Date: 28 January 1954
• Court: Orange Free State Provincial Division

J. N. C. De Villiers, J.:

This is the return day of a rule calling upon respondent to show cause why applicant, a minor, duly assisted by his G father and natural guardian, should not be given leave to sue respondent in forma pauperis for damages alleged to have been caused by a gunshot wound sustained by applicant on the 24th May, 1953, as a result of the negligent discharge of a firearm by respondent.

Counsel, who appeared on behalf of respondent opposed the confirmation of the rule on two grounds.

In the first place he contended that the petition did not set out the H nature and extent of the damages claimed in sufficient detail. The petition, signed on the 9th November, 1953, contains the following allegations: that as a result of the gunshot wound in the shoulder applicant incurred considerable medical expenses and was still under medical supervision; that at the time of the assault he was in the employ of a certain milling company at a salary of £42 10s. per month; that he

J N C De Villiers J

received his salary for the month of May, 1953, but was thereafter discharged from his employment on account of his injuries and that he was still without work on account of his condition; that as a result of the assault applicant intended claiming the sum of £2,000 as and for damages. No itemised account of damages was furnished to the Court.

A In the case of Bateman v O.K. Bazaars, 1931 OPD 117 at p. 121, DE VILLIERS, J.P., as he then was, set out the future requirements of this Court in regard to the contents of an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis in so far as the damages claimed are concerned, as follows:

'The Judges of this Division are of opinion that a similar rule should be here laid down, i.e. that itemized accounts of damages must be furnished, with this proviso that the applicant's own affidavit will B generally be accepted as sufficient where he can speak to definite sums, such as medical expenses paid, wages lost, etc., but that items of damage depending on an estimate should be supported by affidavit by a witness competent to make such estimate.'

In the present case it is a fair inference from the petition that applicant intends to sue for his medical expenses, loss of earnings and general damages, totalling £2,000 in all. There can be no doubt that he has not supplied the Court with sufficient details in regard to the C medical expenses incurred by him or in regard to general damages suffered by him, and had these been the only items of damage he intended suing for the objection would...