Maree v Diedericks

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division
• Judge: Jansen R en Roberts Wn R
• Judgment Date: 01 November 1961
• Citation: 1962 (1) SA 231 (T)
• Hearing Date: 11 May 1960

Jansen, R.:

Die respondent (hierna eiser genoem) het met 'n eis teen appellant (hierna verweerder genoem) in die landdroshof geslaag. Die besonderhede in die dagvaarding was soos volg:

Jansen R

'1.

The plaintiff and the defendant are householders at Blyvooruitzicht in the district Oberholzer, and the defendant is the owner of and/or has in his custody or control two dogs.

2.

On or about the 19th January, 1959, the said two dogs entered upon the plaintiff's premises and attacked and injured certain 11 hens and 1 A rooster, the property of the plaintiff, in consequence whereof the plaintiff has sustained damages in an amount of £19 10s., being the value of the aforesaid hens and rooster.

3.

The aforesaid damages were occasioned by the negligence of the defendant in that he well knew, or ought to have known, that the said dogs were liable to cause damage of the nature aforesaid, and that he left them inadequately tended or not under adequate control.'

Verdere besonderhede is gevra en gedeeltelik verstrek. Daarna het B verweerder soos volg gepleit:

'Ad para. 1

Verweerder erken dat die partye gesinshowe is by die adresse soos beweer en dat hy die eienaar is van, en in sy bewaring en beheer het, een swart en wit fox terrier hondjie, maar ontken die res van die bewerings en plaas die bewyslas daarvan op die eiser.

Ad para. 2:

C Die verweerder dra geen kennis van die feite beweer en erken hulle nie, en plaas die bewyslas daarvan op die eiser.

Ad para. 3:

Verweerder ontken elke en iedere bewering hierin vervat afsonderlik weerspreek, en plaas die bewyslas op die eiser.

Verweerder erken aanmaning.'

D By die verhoor het eiser self getuienis afgelê en ook vier ander getuies geroep (onder wie sy vrou); verweerder self het getuienis afgelê en een getuie geroep. In betoog voor die landdros het eiser aangevoer dat hy moet slaag met òf 'n actio de pauperie òf 'n actio legis aquiliae: verweerder se prokureur het betoog dat die dagvaarding slegs 'n eis op E grond van die lex aquilia inhou en dat nalatigheid nie bewys is nie. Die landdros het beslis dat eiser op grond van die actio de pauperie slaag en dat dit onnodig is om met enige eis ingevolge die lex aquilia te handel.

Verweerder kom in hoër beroep teen hierdie beslissing.

F Voor ons was verweerder deur Mnr. Kruger verteenwoordig; eiser was by verstek. Ons het egter van Mnr. Kruger verstaan dat eiser nie sy vonnis geabandoneer het nie, maar by die beslissing van die Hof berus. Met 'n bloot vlugtige deurlees van die notule was dit nie klaarblyklik dat die appèl moes slaag nie. Gevolglik is Mnr. Kruger versoek om sy volle betoog te lewer oor waarom hierdie Hof hom met die vonnis van die G landdros moes inlaat. Ons is aan Mnr. Kruger dank verskuldig vir sy volledige, knap en billike betoog. Nogtans is dit 'n leemte dat daar niemand was om die teenargumente volledig te stel nie - 'n feit wat 'n omsigtige benadering noodsaaklik maak.

In die eerste plek is aangevoer dat die landdros fouteer het deur sy H beslissing op die beginsels van die actio de pauperie te fondeer. In die dagvaarding, so het die betoog gelui, is daar geen bewering dat die honde contra naturam sui generis gehandel het nie; dit is 'n essensiële bewering waar met die actio de pauperie gevorder word, 'n bewering waarsonder sodanige eis nie gestel kan word nie. In dié verband is 'n beroep gedoen op Paul N.O v Rappoport, 1930 W.L.D. 1, en Geldenhuis v Wilson, 1949 (4) SA 534 (T). Hierby kan ook 'n passasie uit die uitspraak in Double v Delport, 1949 (2) SA 621 (N) op bl. 625, gevoeg word:

'I would have thought a careful pleader would plead pauperies just the same

Jansen R

as he would plead negligence, or at least the summons would allege that the dog or animal acted contrary to its nature.'

(DE WET, R.).

Dit is egter twyfelagtig of hierdie sake 'n onwrikbare reël stel dat die contra naturam-bewering uitdruklik moet voorkom. In die eerste van hierdie drie sake op bl. 3 sê Regter GEY VAN PITTIUS:

A 'If it is necessary for the plaintiff in order to succeed in the action to prove facts to show that the bull acted contra naturam sui generis then I think that allegations to that effect should be made in the declaration. I did not understand Mr. Schlosberg really to contest this proposition, but he contended that the Court must infer from the mere allegation of killing, that the bull did gore or trample or toss the plaintiff's mother and so killed her. I do not agree that this is a B necessary inference; it seems to me easy to imagine cases where a person can be killed by a bull which did not act contra naturam sui generis. I have therefore come to the conclusion that the allegations in the declaration are insufficient to support the pauperien action and that the exception must be upheld with costs.'

Hieruit wil dit voorkom dat die contra naturam-bewering tog soms ontbeer kan word, nl. waar dit 'n noodwendige afleiding uit die beweerde feite C is. Die geleerde Regter het ongetwyfeld 'n beginsel in gedagte gehad wat reeds in etlike sake toegepas was en in Goosen v Reed, 1955 (2) SA 478 (T) op bl. 481, herbevestig is:

'. . . although entire accuracy would have required the making of certain averments of fact in clear and unmistakable terms, yet legitimate inferences can be drawn as to the meaning of the summons and by implication the necessary averment can be supplied'.

D In lg. saak is ook (t.a.p.) gesê:

'It is quite clear that the modern tendency is to move away from formality towards simplicity and that for a number of reasons the Courts, even before the present Magistrates' Courts Act, have discouraged the taking of technical objections, and lean towards the principle that if it is reasonably clear what defendant is sued for, then in the absence of prejudice in the form of the summons, technical objections would not be upheld.'

E (MURRAY, R.).

Die Geldenhuis-saak was 'n appèl teen o.a. 'n landdros se verlening van absolusie aan die einde van 'n saak. Die aard van die dagvaarding blyk uit die volgende:

'The summons sets out that the defendant is the owner of a certain fierce halfbred bull dog which he wrongfully and negligently allowed to F wander loose and uncontrolled in the public streets. It then sets out that on a certain day the plaintiff's daughter was in a street, was attacked by the dog which was loose and under no control and was bitten, and damages are claimed resulting from that bite'

(t.a.p. bl. 536).

Op appèl is o.a. aangevoer -

'That the plaintiff is entitled to succeed absolutely because the G summons does in fact disclose two causes of action. It discloses that the damages are claimed in the actio de pauperie and it discloses that the damages are claimed...