Factual Background
The High Court of South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal Local Division, Durban, recently delivered judgment in a dispute concerning the supply of liquid petroleum gas (LPG). The Plaintiff, a supplier of LPG, had provided the product to the First Defendant over several years. Following a breakdown in the business relationship, the Plaintiff instituted action to recover an alleged outstanding balance, with the Second Defendant cited as surety for the First Defendant's purported debt. The Defendants contended that all legitimate amounts had been paid and that the Plaintiff's claim was based on overcharges for LPG that had not actually been delivered.
Issues in Dispute
The central issues before the court were:
Whether the First Defendant was indebted to the Plaintiff in the amount claimed.
Whether the amounts claimed by the Plaintiff constituted overcharges for LPG that had not been supplied.
The Defendants specifically disputed the accuracy of the Plaintiff's invoices and delivery notes, arguing that the Plaintiff had charged for more gas than was actually delivered.
Court's Findings and Reasoning
At the close of the Plaintiff's case, the Defendants applied for absolution from the instance, arguing that the Plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish its claim. The court agreed, finding that the Plaintiff had not proven, through admissible evidence, that the volumes of LPG claimed had been delivered or that the amounts invoiced were accurate.
The Plaintiff had relied on a large volume of delivery notes and invoices, which were included in the trial bundles. The parties had agreed that these documents were "what they purported to be," but crucially, there was no agreement as to the truth of their contents. The Plaintiff's witnesses could only confirm that the documents formed part of the company's records, but could not attest to the accuracy of the transactions reflected therein.
Rules of Evidence and Admissibility: The Core of the Judgment
The judgment provides a thorough analysis of the rules of evidence, particularly regarding the admissibility of documentary evidence. The court drew a distinction between the authenticity of a document (that it is what it purports to be) and the truth of its contents. The mere inclusion of documents in a trial bundle, or their discovery, does not render their contents admissible as evidence of the truth of what they assert.
The court referred to established authority, including the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Rautini, which held that the contents of discovered documents constitute hearsay unless the author testifies to their correctness, or unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies. The court further cited Sheffryk, emphasising that parties must lead the evidence of the authors of documents if they intend to rely on their contents.
In this case, the Plaintiff did not call the authors of the delivery notes and invoices to testify as to their accuracy. Instead, the Plaintiff relied on the testimony of its legal manager and former logistics manager, neither of whom could provide direct evidence of the truth of the documents' contents. The court found that, in the absence of an agreement as to the truth of the documents' contents, it was incumbent upon the Plaintiff to prove the truth of each delivery note and invoice by calling their authors.
The court was clear that the burden of proof in civil litigation cannot be diluted or ignored simply because the process of proving each transaction is laborious. The Plaintiff's failure to lead admissible evidence meant that there was no basis upon which the court could find in its favour.
Conclusion and Order
The court concluded that the Plaintiff had not established, through admissible evidence, that it had delivered the volumes of LPG alleged or that it was entitled to the judgment sought. As a result, the court granted absolution from the instance in favour of the Defendants and ordered the Plaintiff to pay the Defendants' costs.
Key Lessons on Evidence and Admissibility
This judgment serves as a critical reminder of the importance of the rules of evidence in civil litigation. The distinction between the authenticity of a document and the truth of its contents is fundamental. Parties seeking to rely on documentary evidence must ensure that the authors of such documents are called to testify, unless there is an agreement as to the truth of their contents or an applicable exception to the hearsay rule. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of a claim, regardless of the volume of documentation produced. The judgment underscores that the evidentiary burden in proving a case cannot be circumvented by the mere production of documents; admissible, direct evidence is required to establish the truth of their contents.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
