Fakulteit Regsgeleerdheid

Faculty of Law
Semestertoets / Semester Test

Departement PROSESREG
Department PROCEDURAL LAW

Semestertoets SIP 410

Semester Test

Datum 22 APRIL 2016

Date

Totaal / Total 30

Tyd 90 MINUTE
Time 90 MINUTES

Dosent DR T BEKKER
Lecturer

VOORSIEN NOODSAAKLIKE FEITE NIE HIERIN VOORSIEN NIE!

PROVIDE NECESSARY FACTS NOT PROVIDED HEREIN!
VRAAG 1 / QUESTION 1

Me Stroopsoet Student, ‟n 4de jaar regstudent by die Universiteit van Pretoria, en woonagtig
te Hatfield, kom sien u vir regsadvies. Sy deel u mee dat sy die aand van 19 Maart 2016 die
Premier Liga sokkerwedstryd tussen die Universiteit van Pretoria en Ajax Kaapstad by die
Kaapstad Stadium se sportgronde bygewoon het saam met ‟n paar van haar vriendinne. Sy
meld aan u dat sy die heel aand net 100% suiwer aalwynsap gedrink het aangesien sy baie
gesteld is daarop om te alle tye ten volle nugter te bestuur en omdat sy hiperaktief raak as
sy te veel suiker inneem. Om ongeveer 9 uur die aand het sy saam met haar vriendinne in
haar wit Porsche Carrera motorvoertuig, waarop daar in groot rooi letters die woorde “TUKS
OF NIKS” gesprei is, geklim en gery na ‟n gastehuis in Kaapstad waar hulle die aand sou
oornag. Terwyl hulle oppad was na die gastehuis het ‟n ene Mnr Brad Loser, ‟n oud-student
van die Universiteit van Kaapstad, wat nou woonagtig en gedomisilieerd is in Sydney,
Australië, (wat net tydelik in Suid-Afrika was vir besigheidsdoeleindes), en wat uitermatig
onder die invloed van Tassenberg wyn was, Me Stroopsoet van die pad gedruk met sy
opgeboude Ford Cortina terwyl hy uit volle bors geskree het “Tuks is niks!” Me Stroopsoet
het beheer oor haar motorvoertuig verloor en teen ‟n springkasteel langs die pad vasgery.
Die skade aan Stroopsoet se motorvoertuig beloop R477 000,00. Stroopsoet wil graag vir
Brad Loser, wat nog steeds in Suid-Afrika teenwoordig is, in ‟n Suid-Afrikaanse hof dagvaar
vir skadevergoeding, indien enigsins moontlik. Navrae bring aan die lig dat Brad Loser ‟n
aantal opreg geteelde volstruise besit in die Vrystaat en ‟n eenmanwoonstel in
Johannesburg.

Ms Goody Two-shoes, a 4th year law student at the University of Pretoria, who resides
in Hatfield, comes to see you for legal advice. She informs you that on the night of 19
March 2016 she attended the Premier League soccer match between the University of
Pretoria and Ajax Cape Town, at the sports grounds of Cape Town Stadium, with
some of her friends. She informs you that during the evening she only drank 100%
pure aloe juice as she is very conscious of driving fully sober at all times and because
too much sugar makes her hyperactive. At approximately 9 o’clock that night, Goody
Two-shoes and her friends got into her white Porsche Carrera motor vehicle on which
is sprayed in large letters the words “TUKS OR NOTHING”, and drove off to a guest
house in Cape Town where they would sleep the night. While they were on their way
to the guesthouse, a certain Mr Brad Loser, an old student of the University of Cape
Town, who is now resident and domiciled in Sydney, Australia, (who was only
temporarily in South Africa for business purposes), and who was excessively under
the influence of Tassenberg wine, forced Ms Two-Shoes of the road in his built-up
Ford Cortina while shouting out “Tuks is nothing!” Ms Two-shoes lost control of her
motor vehicle and collided with a jumping castle next to the road. The damage to
Goody’s motor vehicle amounts to R477 000,00. Goody wants to sue Brad Loser, who
is still present in South Africa, in a South African court for damages, if in any way
possible. Enquiries bring to light that Brad Loser owns a number of thoroughbred
ostriches in the Free State and a bachelor’s flat in Johannesburg.

1.1 Adviseer u kliënt volledig ten aansien van al die verskillende howe waarin die eis
teen Brad Loser ingestel kan word asook die nodige prosedure wat gevolg moet
word.

Advise your client in full of all the different courts in which the claim against
Brad Loser may be instituted as well as the necessary procedure that has to
be followed. (5)

Brad Loser is ‟n buitelandse peregrinus (1) en derhalwe moet daar op sy volstruise

in Vrystaat of sy eenmanwoonstel in Johannesburg beslag gelê word (1) om
jurisdiksie te vestig (½) in die Gauteng Afdeling, Pretoria (½) waar Stroopsoet ‟n
incola is (½) of om jurisdiksie te bevestig (½) in die Wes Kaapse Afdeling, Kaapstad
(½) waar die eisoorsaak ontstaan het. (½)

Brad Loser is a foreign peregrinus (1) and therefore his ostriches in Free State
or his bachelor’s flat in Johannesburg has to be attached (1) to found (½)
jurisdiction in the Gauteng Division, Pretoria (½) where Goody Two-shoes is
an incola (½) or to confirm (½) jurisdiction in the Western Cape Division, Cape
Town (½) where the cause of action arose. (½)

1.2 Sou u antwoord hierbo by vraag 1.1 verskil het indien Brad Loser geen bates in die
Republiek van Suid-Afrika besit het nie? Verduidelik.

Would your answer to question 1.1 have been different if Brad Loser owned no
assets in the Republic of South Africa? Explain. (3)

Ja, want dan is dit nodig om ‟n dagvaarding op Brad Loser persoonlik te beteken
terwyl hy fisies teenwoordig is in die RSA. (1) Moet aansoek doen by hof waar daar
‟n genoegsame verband is tussen die hof en die aksie (1) soos bv die hof waar die
eisoorsaak plaasgevind het of die hof waar die eiser ‟n incola is. (1)

Yes, because then it will be necessary to serve a summons personally on Brad

Loser while he is physically present in the RSA. (1) Will apply to a court where
there is an adequate connection between the court and the suit (1) for example
the court where the cause of action arose or the court where the plaintiff is an
incola. (1)
1.3 Me Stroopsoet meld aan u dat sy gedurende haar studies deur haar Siviele
Prosesreg dosent geleer is dat Brad Loser gearresteer kan word deur die Balju om
die nodige jurisdiksie oor hom te bekom. Adviseer haar volledig, met verwysing na
relevante regspraak.

Ms Goodie Two-shoes informs you that she was taught during her studies by
her lecturer in Civil Procedure that Brad Loser can be arrested by the Sheriff
to obtain the necessary jurisdiction over him. Advise her in full with reference
to relevant case law. (2)

1.3 In die aangeleentheid van Bid Industrial Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Strang (1) is die arres
prosedure om die jurisdiksie van ‟n hof te vestig of bevestig onkonstitusioneel bevind
(1) en die arrestasie is derhalwe ongeldig.

In the matter of Bid Industrial Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Strang (1) the arrest
procedure to found or confirm the jurisdiction of a court was declared
unconstitutional (1) and the arrest would therefore be invalid.

[10]

VRAAG 2 / QUESTION 2

U kliënt wil graag ‟n siviele eis instel teen die Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit (Polisie)
op grond van onregmatige arrestasie. Verduidelik kortliks die prosedurele vereistes waaraan
u kliënt sal moet voldoen.

Your client would like to institute a civil claim against the Minister of Safety and
Security (Police) on the grounds of unlawful arrest. Briefly explain the procedural
requirements that your client will have to comply with.

Die Wet op die Instel van Siviele Gedinge teen Sekere Staatsorgane (1) bepaal dat jou kliënt
binne 6 maande vanaf die datum waarop die deliktuele eisoorsaak ontstaan het, ‟n skriftelike
kennisgewing van voorneme om ‟n regsaksie in te stel aan die staatsorgaan moet aflewer.
(1) Die dagvaarding mag slegs na verstryking van ‟n periode van 30 dae na die datum
waarop die skriftelike kennisgewing gegee is, beteken word. (1)
The Institution of the Legal Proceedings against certain Organs of State Act (1)
provides that your client must give written notice of the intention to institute legal
proceedings against a state organ within 6 months of the date on which the delictual
claim arose. (1) Summons may only be served after 30 days from which the written
notice was given. (1)

[3]

VRAAG 3 / QUESTION 3

Mnr Jannie Jaagduiwel kom sien u vir regsadvies. Hy deel u mee dat hy betrokke was in ‟n

motorbotsing met ‟n ene Sarie Slakkenjan op 7 April 2016 en dat die botsing te wyte was

aan Sarie se uitsluitlike nalatigheid. As gevolg van die botsing het Jannie skade opgedoen

aan sy gemodifiseerde Mitsubishi Lancer motorvoertuig in die bedrag van R403 999 welke

bedrag as volg opgemaak word:

Skade aan bakwerk van motorvoertuig – R201 555.

Skade aan enjin – R202 444.

Jannie deel u mee dat hy nog „n bedrag van R3 999 aan Sarie verskuldig is ten opsigte van

‟n skootrekenaar wat hy by Sarie gekoop het op 18 Oktober 2015.

Aangesien Jannie nie die hoë regskostes wil aangaan om die aangeleentheid in die Hoë Hof

in te stel nie, gee hy aan u instruksies om die aksie in die Streekshof van Pretoria in te stel.

Mr Sam Speedaholic comes to see you for legal advice. He informs you that he was

involved in a motor vehicle collision with Suzy Slowpoke on 7 April 2016 and that the

collision was caused by Suzy’s sole negligence. As a result of the collision Sam

sustained damages to his modified Mitsubishi Lancer motor vehicle in the amount of

R403 999, which amount is made up as follows:

Damage to body of motor vehicle – R201 555.

Damage to engine – R202 444.

Sam instructs you that he still owes an amount of R3 999 to Suzy pertaining to a

laptop that he bought from Suzy on 18 October 2015.

Due to the fact that Sam does not want to be subject to the high legal costs of a

High Court, he instructs you to institute the claim in the Pretoria Regional Court.

3.1 Kan Jannie twee verskillende eise instel in die streekshof om die volle bedrag van

R403 999 te verhaal? Bespreek volledig.

Can Sam institute two different claims in the regional court to recover the full
amount of R403 999? Discuss in full. (3)

3.1 Nee dit sal neerkom op ‟n splitsing van eise. (1) Artikel 40 van die Wet op
Landdroshowe bepaal dat ‟n substantiewe eis wat die jurisdiksie van die strekshof
oorskry, nie gesplits mag word met die doel om die relevante bedrag in meer as
een aksie te verhaal (1) indien die partye tot al sodanige aksies (½) en die punt in
geskil dieselfde sal wees nie. (½) Toepassing op feite. (1) [maks = 3]

No this will amount to a splitting of claims. (1) Section 40 of the Magistrates’

Court Act provides that a substantive claim exceeding the jurisdiction of a
regional court may not be split with the object of recovering the relevant
amount in more than one action (1) if the parties to all such actions would be
the same (½) and the point of issue would also be the same. (½) Application
on facts. (1) [max = 3]

3.2 Indien u antwoord hierbo ontkennend is, wat sal u u kliënt adviseer ten einde die
bedrag binne die jurisdiksie van die streekshof te bring? Bespreek volledig.
If your answer above is in the negative, what would you advise your client to
bring the amount within the jurisdiction of the regional court? Discuss in full.
(2)

3.2 In terme van artikel 39 (1) wanneer ‟n eiser se eis die jurisdiksieperk van die
streekshof oorskry, kan die eiser die erkende skuld van R3 999 aftrek van die
eisbedrag ten einde die eis binne die jurisdiksieperk van die streekshof te bring. (1)

In terms of section 39 (1) when the plaintiff’s claim exceeds the monetary
jurisdiction of a regional court, the plaintiff may deduct the admitted debt of
R3 999 to bring the claim within the jurisdictional limit of the regional court.
(1)
3.3 Gestel Sarie se prokureur stuur aan u ‟n skrywe waarin die volgende klousule
voorkom: “Ten aansien van die aksie wat die eiser op die punt staan om in te stel
teen die verweerder, stem die verweerder toe tot die jurisdiksie van die streekshof
van Pretoria, ongeag die feit dat die eisbedrag die monetêre jurisdiksie van die
streekshof oorskry.” Is hierdie klousule geldig? Bespreek volledig.
Suppose Suzy’s attorney sends you a letter which contains the following
clause: “In respect of the action that the plaintiff is about to institute against
the defendant, the defendant consents to the jurisdiction of the regional court
in Pretoria, irrespective of the fact that the amount claimed exceeds the
monetary jurisdiction of the regional court.” Is this clause valid? Discuss in
full. (3)

3.3 Ja hierdie klousule is geldig (1) aangesien ‟n party ingevolge artikel 45 mag toestem
tot die jurisdiksie van ‟n spesifieke landdroshof (1) waar die aksie op die punt is om
ingestel te word. (1)

Yes this clause is valid (1) because a party may consent in terms of section 45
to the jurisdiction of a specific magistrate’s court (1) where the action is
about to be instituted. (1) [8]

VRAAG 4 / QUESTION 4

Lys die vier aangeleenthede wat spesifiek uitgesluit is van die Landdroshowe se jurisdiksie
ingevolge artikel 46.
List the four mattters that are specifically excluded from the jurisdiction of the
Magistrates’ Courts in terms of section 46.
[4]
(a) Geldigheid of uitleg van ‟n testament. (1)
(b) Aangeleenthede mbt die geestelike bekwaamheid van „n persoon. (1)
(c) Eise vir spesifieke nakoming sonder ‟n alternatiewe eis vir skadevergoeding. (1)
(d) Aangeleenthede waar ‟n bevel van ewigdurende stilswye versoek word. (1)

(a) Matters in which the validity or interpretation of a will or other testamentary

document is in question. (1)
(b) Matters in which the status of a person in respect of mental capacity is sought to
be affected. (1)
(c) Matters in which a decree of perpetual silence is sought. (1)
(d) Claims for specific performance without an alternative claim for the payment of
damages. (1)

VRAAG 5 / QUESTION 5

5.1 Bespreek watter spesifieke howe jurisdiksie sal hê oor die persone ten aansien van
‟n egskeidingsgeding ingestel in ‟n streekshof.
Discuss which specific courts would have jurisdiction over the persons in
relation to a divorce action instituted in a regional court. (4)

5.1 ‟n Streekshof waar die partye tot die aksie, of enige party tot die aksie: (1)

(a) gedomisilieerd is binne die jurisdiksiegebied van die hof op datum waarop die
aksie ingestel word; of (1)
(b) gewoonlik woonagtig is binne die jurisdiksiegebied van die hof op datum
waarop die aksie ingestel word (1) en vir een jaar onmiddellik voorafgaande
aan daardie datum gewoonlik binne die Republiek woonagtig is of was. (1)

A district court where the parties to the action are, or if either party to the
action is: (1)

(a) domiciled in the area of jurisdiction of the court on the date on which the
action is instituted; or (1)
(b) ordinarily resident in the area of jurisdiction of the court on date on
which the action is instituted (1) and have or has been ordinarily
resident in the Republic for one year immediately prior to that date. (1)

5.2 Watter spesifieke hof sal defnitief jurisdiksie hê by ‟n aansoek vir toestemming om
‟n minderjarige se woonstel, geleë te Johannesburg, te verkoop?
Which specific court will definitely have jurisdiction in an application for
permission to sell a minor’s flat situated in Johannesburg? (1)

5.2 Die hof waar die minderjarige gedomisilieerd is. (1)

The court where the minor is domiciled. (1)
[5]
TOTAAL / TOTAL: [30]