File photo File photo
Durban - A Durban man’s damages lawsuit against the eThekwini Municipality has hit a stumbling block because the letter of demand sent by his attorney was “too respectful” and did not warn of an impending legal claim.
Ravi Perumal was injured in an incident in May 2008 at the Snake Park in Durban.
In June 2008, his attorney sent a letter to the municipality about the incident, and the municipality responded the following month stating that it was not liable for damages.
Perumal then launched legal proceedings against the municipality.
However the municipality argued that the letter had not been in the form of a demand and had merely been a “request for assistance” in light of an injury that had been sustained.
In terms of the Legal Proceedings against Certain Organs of State Act, any party wishing to sue any state institution has to give notice in writing of this intention.
Durban High Court Judge Mahendra Chetty, in a recent judgment, agreed with the city and found the letter had not been in line with the legislative requirements.
Judge Chetty said that the letter could not be construed as a notice to institute legal proceedings and was “silent” on the issue.
“There is nothing which forewarns the defendant (the municipality) that should it not pay towards the plantiff’s (Perumal’s) medical expenses, legal proceedings will be instituted against it.”
According to the attorney’s letter, Perumal sustained an injury to one of his eyes and had been referred to an ophthalmic surgeon, as his vision had been affected.
The letter said the injury had been caused due to the negligence of municipal employees and asked for the city to state whether it would cover the medical costs.
“Kindly inform us as to whether your offices would be prepared to cover his medical costs in respect thereof as a matter of urgency,” the letter said.
In its response, the city said it could not accept liability for any damages caused, and no negligence could be attributed to municipal workers.
It was submitted on Perumal’s behalf that the letter had complied with the law, and even if it was deficient in some regard there was no prejudice suffered by the municipality.
The court rejected this argument.
The Mercury
