Maart 2013: jaargang 10, nommer 1 - LitNet

LitNet Akademies Jaargang 10 (1), Maart 2013
which is objectionable; the averment of it in pleading, the having an issue on it, the going to
the jury with it, that is forbidden”; en t.a.v. die uitsonderings: “[T]he true inquiry is whether
certain claims or defences are allowable. If relief can be had in such cases the law of evidence
has nothing to say as to any kind of evidence, good under the general rules, which may be
offered to prove these things. In so far as extrinsic facts are a legal basis of claim or defence,
extrinsic evidence is good to prove them.” Wigmore (1935) steun hierdie standpunt waar hy
verklaar: “It is a rule of substantive law, because it deals with the question in what sources
and materials are to be found the terms of a legal act, and not a rule of evidence dealing with
the value of one fact as probative of another.” So ook Leake (1906:182–3).
167 Brisley v Drotsky 21, 25-6 supra n. 154.
168 26.
169 Ibid.
170 1952 2 SA 428 (A).
171 454.
172 1954 1 SA 147 (A).
173 1916 AD 194.
174 206.
175 1972 1 SA 761 (A).
176 767.
177 768.
178 1984 1 SA 1 (A) 16–7.
179 1985 3 SA 686 (A) 701.
180 1988 1 SA 243 (A) 253.
181 2001 4 SA 551 (HHA) 601.
182 26. Sien Randcoal Services Ltd v Randgold and Exploration Co Ltd 1998 4 SA 825
(HHA) 841; Golden Fried Chicken (Pty) Ltd v Sirad Fast Foods CC 2002 1 SA 822 (HHA)
826.
183 McCormick (1932:365).
165