Moulang v Port Elizabeth Municipality

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Jennett J
• Judgment Date: 02 April 1957
• Citation: 1957 (3) SA 667 (E)
• Hearing Date: 19 March 1957
• Court: Eastern Districts Local Division

Moulang v Port Elizabeth Municipality
1957 (3) SA 667 (E)

1957 (3) SA p667

Citation	1957 (3) SA 667 (E)
Court	Eastern Districts Local Division
Judge	Jennett J
Heard	March 19, 1957
Judgment	April 2, 1957

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Practice — Pauper suits — Leave to sue in forma pauperis - Claim for damages — Necessary affidavits and account of damages.

Headnote : Kopnota

A In applications for leave to sue in forma pauperis in actions for damages, itemised accounts of damages should be furnished, with the proviso that the applicant's own affidavit will generally be accepted as sufficient when he can speak to definite sums such as medical expenses paid, wages lost, etc., but that the basis of items of damages depending B on an estimate should be supported by affidavit by a witness competent to deal with such basis.

Case Information

Application in the Port Elizabeth Circuit Local Division for leave to sue in forma pauperis. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

S. G. Rein, for the applicant.

M. Fick, for the respondent. C

Cur adv vult.

Postea (April 2nd).

Judgment

D Jennett, J.:

Applicant alleges that on 5th October, 1956, while walking on the pavement of a public road in the respondent's municipal area he placed his foot on the edge of a cement slab and fell. As a result he sustained a fracture of his right ankle. He alleges that the condition of the pavement at the spot where he fell constituted a grave E danger to pedestrian traffic using the pavement and that that condition was due to negligence on the part of the respondent.

He seeks leave to sue respondent for £500 as and for damages arising from the injury referred to.

In his petition he sets out that he is 71 years of age, that his income consists of pension monies totalling £17 15s. 5d. per month, and that F his wife who receives a pension of £10 10s. 0d. per month has been very ill for some time.

Respondent filed two affidavits. In one by the Town Clerk it is submitted that the applicant should not be granted leave to proceed as his petition does not sufficiently show that his claim exceeds £200 so G as to make it one proper for trial in this Court rather than in the magistrate's court. The other is an affidavit by a medical practitioner and consulting surgeon in which he states that he has examined applicant and found that he sustained a fractured ankle and has a slight limp...