EX PARTE CORSYN CONSOLIDATED MINES LIMITED AND ANOTHER 1980 ZLR 1 (G)

EX PARTE CORSYN CONSOLIDATED MINES LIMITED AND ANOTHER 1980 ZLR 1 (G)

Citation 1980 ZLR 1 (G)

Case No No details supplied

Court General Division, Salisbury

Judge Beadle, AJ

Heard 4th January, 1980

Judgment 4th January, 1980

Counsel P Sullivan, for the second petitioner.

Case Type Petition

Annotations No case annotations to date

Flynote

Administration D of minor’s estate — Guardian’s Fund — illiterate parent unable to manage money paid to minor

child — whether justification for money being paid into Guardian’s Fund — proof of facts justifying such payment.

Headnote

The petitioners applied for an order directing that money which the first petitioner owed the second

petitioner’s minor son should be paid into the Guardian’s Fund rather than to the second

petitioner, since the second petitioner was an illiterate labourer unable to E manage the money.

There was nothing in the papers, however, to explain why the money should be paid into the

Fund.

Held that the facts that the second petitioner could not himself manage the money and that he

requested the order, constituted a special reason for paying the money into the Guardian’s Fund.

Held, further, that to save unnecessary expense the Court should accept as proven the facts of the

case as stated from the Bar rather than ask for a supplementary affidavit to be filed. F

Cases cited G

Moshesh NO v Marine and Trade Insurance Co Ltd 1971 (4) SA 288 (D).

Case information

P Sullivan, for the second petitioner. H

Judgment

Beadle AJ: In this matter the first petitioner is a company which operates a mine. The second

petitioner is an African and I am informed he is employed as a general labourer on the mine,

operated by the first petitioner. A son of the second petitioner was injured as a result of the

negligent operating of an electric cable by the first petitioner in the

Beadle AJ

course of its mining operations. It is conceded that the son had a case against the first petitioner

and his claim has been settled. The first petitioner agreed to pay the son of the second petitioner a

sum of $4 000 in settlement of the claim of the son against it. A

The first order which was asked for was for the Court in its capacity as upper guardian of the minor

to confirm this settlement of the son’s claim against the first petitioner. The second prayer in the

petition, B however, asks that the sum of $4 000 be paid by the first respondent, not to the second

respondent in his capacity as father and natural guardian of his son, but into the Guardian’s Fund

where it would be administered by the Master on behalf of the minor. There is nothing in the papers

which explains why it was necessary for this sum to be paid into the Guardian’s C Fund and not to be

paid direct to the second petitioner in his capacity as guardian of his son.

In the circumstances, the Master, not unnaturally, objected to receiving this sum into the Guardian’s

Fund. Inquiries have since been made, D however, and it appears that the second petitioner is an

illiterate African of the labourer type who is quite incapable of administering any sum of money on

behalf of his child and that he himself wishes the money to be paid into the Guardian’s Fund on his

son’s behalf, as he himself is incapable of administering this money. These facts should have

appeared E in the petition and, had they appeared in the petition, the Master is unlikely to have

raised any objection to receiving this amount into the Guardian’s Fund. See Moshesh NO v Marine

and Tree Insurance Co Ltd 1971 (4) SA 288 (D). F

However, in order to avoid unnecessary expense, I have not ordered, as I would normally have

done, that a supplementary affidavit be filed setting out these facts, but on the assurances given me

from the Bar, I accept these facts as proven, the facts that the second respondent not only is an

illiterate African incapable of managing this amount of money, G but has, at his own request, asked

that this money be paid into the Guardian’s Fund. This seems a sufficient “special reason” for paying

this money into the Guardian’s Fund. H

In the circumstances, the Master now raises no objections. I point out however, that the proper

course in cases of this sort, the “special reasons” should be set out clearly in the papers. I therefore

make an order in terms of the draft order, which reads as follows:

Beadle AJ

“IT IS ORDERED:

1. That full and final settlement of all claims by Silas Makota in his A capacity as father and natural

guardian of Lackson Makota, and more especially for damages for shock, pain and suffering, loss of

amenities of life and future medical expenses in respect of injuries suffered by the said Lackson

Makota in the vicinity of the Lonrho shaft at the Mazoe Mine on the 15th January, 1976, against

Corsyn Consolidated Mines Limited, in the sum of $4 000, be and is hereby confirmed. B

2. That the said sum of $4 000 shall be paid by the said Corsyn Consolidated Mines Limited into the

Guardian’s Fund administered by the Master of this Honourable Court for the benefit of the said

Lackson Makota until the said Lackson Makota attains his majority, provided that until the said

Lackson Makota attains his majority, the Master of the High Court may pay income and, if such

income is insufficient, C capital, for the education, welfare, maintenance and advancement in life of

the said Lackson Makota.

3. The costs of this petition shall be paid by Corsyn Consolidated Mines Limited. D

BY THE COURT.

Registrar.”.

Honey & Blanckenberg, attorneys for the petitioners.