Latest news with #DepartmentofScienceandInnovation

IOL News

Court dismisses R27 billion damages claim against Department of Science and Innovation

Durban High Court dismisses man on R27 billion claim against Department of Science and Innovation Image: File The Durban High Court has dismissed a man who is demanding R27 billion in damages from the Department of Science and Innovation. The man represented himself and used jargon and acronyms that the court found difficult to comprehend. Melusi Christopher Ntuli applied for a summary of judgement in this court against the department. A summary judgement is issued by the court without going to trial. His particulars comprised four separate claims and when totaled together they amounted to R27bn. Additionally, the court said his claim for judgement summary was some 921 pages. It also said Ntuli's claim appeared to revolve around two devices: a chargeless electric engine and a PSDC motor. 'The claims are based on the unconstitutionality, illegality, marketing, and infringement of the intellectual property rights (IPRs) due to the respondents' (the department) Grassroots Innovation Programme (GIP),' Ntuli said in his affidavit. Ntuli claims that his intellectual property rights have suffered reputational damages. He said the IPRs have a damaged reputation and has suffered the sum of R5bn. The other claim is that the department had no legal grounds for using the IPRs and therefore it has suffered a loss and damaged reputation of R2bn. Ntuli also said the department was not entitled to promote the electric engine through GIP and said the IPRs have suffered R10bn on damaged reputation. Another claim is R10bn for infringed rights of intellectual property. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ 'From this whistle-stop tour through the plaintiff's claim, it is clear that he seeks unliquidated damages from the defendant,' Judge Robin Mossop said. He said a claim is liquidated if it is fixed either by agreement or by an order of court, or is capable of swift and easy computation. 'There is no such agreement in this instance on the amounts claimed by the plaintiff, nor have the amounts been determined by a court. It is impossible to calculate how the amounts claimed have been calculated,' Judge Mossop added. Judge Mossop said that if he understood the papers drafted by Ntuli correctly about his claims, it appears that he invented the devices. He said it appeared that Ntuli held intellectual property rights to the devices and that the department had accepted the use of these devices into its programme called GIP. Judge Mossop said he did not understand what a PSDC motor is and what GIP is for, as neither of these was explained. Mossop said the department raised its defences properly. Janse van Rensburg, a State attorney, said Ntuli's claim was not liquidated and said this court lacked jurisdiction to deal with this matter, as Ntuli stated that the department was based in Pretoria. Moreover, Judge Mossop advised Ntuli to seek legal assistance. 'It seems to me that it would be beneficial for him (Ntuli) if he acquires legal advice to help him deal with the difficulties that he is inevitably going to face. If he cannot afford such assistance, I have arranged for my registrar to provide him with the local address of Legal Aid South Africa,' Judge Mossop said. Ntuli was given leave to defend the action, and Judge Mossop said costs were reserved for decision by the trial court.