EL

Mabuza v Phinduvuke Bus Service (66/2017) [2018] SZSC 13 (29 May 2018);

Flynote:

Search Summary:

Civil Procedure ̶ Action by Appellant claiming damages for negligence – Bus conductor throws bottle under bus from which the Appellant has just alighted – Bus stamples over the stump of crushed bottle – Part of the bottle springs up and hits eye of the Appellant resulting in injury – Respondent raises plea of absolution from the instance on ground that the injury was not foreseeable – court a quo upholds the plea on ground that the bus conductor was not negligent as the damage caused was neither reasonably foreseeable nor preventable – whether court a quo applied proper test for absolution from the first instance – On appeal, held that on the evidence adduced the conduct of the bus conductor was negligent and the damage caused to the Appellant was reasonably foreseeable and preventable – Appeal allowed with costs – Matter remitted back to the court a quo, to hear the Respondent’s case and determine the case on the merits.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ESWATINI

JUDGMENT

HELD AT MBABANE CIVIL APPEAL CASE NO.66/2017

In the matter between:

SIFISO MABUZA APPELLANT

and

Masundvwini Royal Kraal v Evangelical Church (By Christ Ambassadors) and Another (19/2017) [2018] SZSC 10 (03 May 2018);

Flynote:

EL

Injunction

African customary law and rights of indigenous peoples

Search Summary:

Civil Procedure ̶ Application by Appellant for an order ejecting the Respondents from the land situate at Mhlaleni, directing the Respondents to demolish all structures they have constructed on the land and interdicting Respondent’s from carrying out any activities on the land – Dispute over the territorial jurisdiction over the area where land is situate – Plea of lis pendens raised by the Respondents - whether matter pending determination by the High Court or the traditional authorities – High Court upholds plea of lis pendens and orders status quo prevailing to be maintained pending determination by appropriate authority – Whether High Court erred in so holding – Whether High Court has jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to land pending before traditional authorities having regard to Section 151 (3) (b) of the Constitution - Held that High Court has no original jurisdiction to entertain matters in which a Swazi Court has jurisdiction, but High Court has only revisional and appellate juridiction as provided by Section 151 (3) of the Constitution - where a matter is pending or has been determined by the traditional authorities, the High Court must refer the matter back to those authorities for determination or enforcement – Decision of High Court upheld, and – Appeal dismissed with costs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SWAZILAND

JUDGMENT

HELD AT MBABANE CIVIL APPEAL CASE NO.19/2017

In the matter between:

MASUNDVWINI ROYAL KRAAL APPELLANT

and