Ackerman v Road Accident Fund (34965/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 472 (6 May 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 472
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- MPN Mbongwe
- Case number
- 34965/2021
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- MPN Mbongwe
- Case number
- 34965/2021
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court refused to grant the order for payment of the flight costs because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient proof that the claim for R69,000.00 had been submitted to the Road Accident Fund. Despite engaging with counsel and standing the matter down to allow for further consultation, no evidence was produced to show that the Fund was aware of the flight expense claim. The court was therefore not satisfied that the expense was properly claimed and declined to include it in the order for past medical expenses. The remainder of the claim, for which proof of submission was provided, was granted.
Court disposition
The claim for past medical expenses was granted only in respect of amounts for which proof of submission to the Road Accident Fund was provided. The claim for flight costs was refused.
Orders
- The Road Accident Fund is ordered to pay the plaintiff's past medical expenses as proved and submitted.
- The claim for R69,000.00 in flight costs is refused.
02
Material facts
Parties
Benjamin Leigh Ackerman
Plaintiff Counsel: Adv Eia; Adv RasRoad Accident Fund
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Flight Cost Claimed: ZAR 69,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Action / Request for Reasons Under Rule 49(1)(c) Following Default Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the cost of a flight as part of past medical expenses from the Road Accident Fund.
- 02
Whether sufficient proof was provided that the flight expense claim was submitted to the Road Accident Fund.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff, represented by counsel, argued that the cost of a flight from Johannesburg to Cape Town, amounting to R69,000.00, formed part of his past medical expenses resulting from the motor vehicle accident. Counsel contended that these expenses were incurred in the course of medical treatment and should be recoverable from the Road Accident Fund.
- Respondent
- The Road Accident Fund did not appear and did not present any argument. The court scrutinized the plaintiff's claim, particularly the flight expense, and required proof that the claim had been submitted to the Fund and that the Fund was aware of it.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
A claimant must provide cogent proof that a claim for specific expenses has been submitted to the Road Accident Fund to recover such expenses.
- 02
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 31(2)(a)
Default judgment may only be granted for amounts properly proved and submitted to the defendant.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court refused to grant the order for payment of the flight costs because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient proof that the claim for R69,000.00 had been submitted to the Road Accident Fund. Despite engaging with counsel and standing the matter down to allow for further consultation, no evidence was produced to show that the Fund was aware of the flight expense claim. The court was therefore not satisfied that the expense was properly claimed and declined to include it in the order for past medical expenses. The remainder of the claim, for which proof of submission was provided, was granted.
Obiter and limits
- Counsel for the plaintiff failed to return to court after the matter was stood down, and no explanation was provided for this absence.
- A change in counsel on the subsequent hearing date resulted in the new counsel being unfamiliar with the progress of the matter, but the draft order submitted was accepted for the proved portion of the claim.
Court disposition
The claim for past medical expenses was granted only in respect of amounts for which proof of submission to the Road Accident Fund was provided. The claim for flight costs was refused.
- The Road Accident Fund is ordered to pay the plaintiff's past medical expenses as proved and submitted.
- The claim for R69,000.00 in flight costs is refused.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO: 34965/2021
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE 06/05/2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
BENJAMIN
LEIGH ACKERMAN
Plaintiff
And
ROAD
ACCIDENT FUND
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:
REQUEST FOR REASONS IN TERMS OF RULE 49(1)(c)
MBONGWE J:
[1] The Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident during 2019. It appeared his claim was settled with the Defendant, the Road Accident Fund, save in respect of the claim for past medical expenses.
[2] The Plaintiff’s matter came before me on 24 and 26 February 2025 when default judgment was sought against the RAF for payment of past medical expenses which included the cost of a flight that was incurred to ferry the Plaintiff from Johannesburg to Cape Town.
[3] I awarded the amount for past medical expenses in respect of which proof that same had been submitted and claimed from the RAF, but refused to grant the flight costs of about R69,000.00. This request for reasons is in respect of the said refusal.
[4] I have now perused the transcript of the proceedings of 24 February 2025 and noted that despite a lengthy engagement with the Plaintiff’s Counsel, Mr Eia, during which I sought proof that the claim for payment of R69,000.00 for the flight had been submitted and the RAF was, therefore, aware thereof, no cogent proof of submission of that claim could be produced. I was, in consequence, not inclined to grant the order sought in those circumstances.
[5] Counsel for the Plaintiff undertook to consult with his instructing attorneys and would return to court at 14h00. The matter was then stood down accordingly. Counsel never returned and no explanation was given.
[6] On Wednesday, 26 February 2025, a different counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr Ras, appeared in court. He advised the court that he had been briefed in the matter that morning but had no knowledge of the facts and how far the matter had progressed, save that he was to hand in a Draft Order. The Draft Order contained the amount for past medical expenses, for which submission to the RAF was proved in court. The Draft was accordingly made an order of the court.
MPN
MBONGWE
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff: Adv Eia; Adv Ras Instructed by: Savage Jooste & Adams For the Defendant: No appearance Date of hearing: 24 & 26 February 2025 Date of Order: 26 February 2025 Date of Reasons: 05 May 2025
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.