COURT DISMISSES GLOBE FLIGHT (PTY) LTD’S APPLICATION

MBABANE - The High Court of Eswatini has dismissed the notice of exception raised on behalf of Globe Flight (Pty) Ltd against Swazi Pharm Wholesalers (Pty) ltd.

The judgment was passed by Judge Bongani Dlamini who further directed Globe Flight (Pty) Ltd to pay costs of the exception. Swazi Pharm Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd is the plaintiff in matter and Globe Flight (Pty) Ltd is the defendant. In his judgement, Dlamini said the plaintiff, issued summons against the defendant on May 18, 2022 in which they claimed the payment of the sum E304 200 in respect to the value of certain goods allegedly damaged through the negligence of the defendant. Globe Flight (Pty) Ltd filed a notice to defend, the plaintiff also filed and served its declaration after.

Swazi Pharm Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd alleged that they entered into an agreement with the defendant in that Globe flight Pty Ltd would offer courier services on behalf of the plaintiff.
“The plaintiff had ordered snake venom from a South African company known as Medvision (Pty) Ltd and the defendant was contracted to ferry the consignment from South Africa to Swazi Pharm Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd principal place of business,” said the judge. Dlamini added that the other material term of the agreement was that the anti-venom should be kept in the fridge and at a temperature below eight degrees. He said Globe Flight (Pty) Ltd was comfortable with the arrangement and accepted the instruction to ferry the snake venom from South Africa to Eswatini.

“The goods were valued at E304 200; unfortunately the goods were damaged due to the defendant’s negligence, which amongst other things, the failure to properly store the goods at the required temperature. Also the negligence related to the defendant’s driver’s failure to advise the plaintiff of his late arrival at Swazi Pharm Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd place of business,” he said. The judge also mentioned that in response to the plaintiff declaration, the defendant filled and served a notice of exception in which they alleged that the declaration was contradictory, vague and embarrassing amongst other things. Dlamini said these two cases have been pleaded concurrently and not separately or alternatively. He said the driver had not been named or joined in the proceedings.

The judge said the declaration did not disclose a cause of action insofar as it is not alleged that the said driver was acting in the course and scope of his employment with the defendant to establish vicarious liability. In his conclusion, Dlamini said the driver did not have any direct or substantial interest in the outcome of the matter, at least in the legal sense. “The order that may be issued by the court at the close of the proceedings is capable of being carried into effect without prejudicing the defendant’s driver in any way whatsoever,” he said. Dlamini said the driver can be a witness in the proceedings but the substance of the matter does not concern him at all.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: