Ackerman v Road Accident Fund (34965/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 472 (6 May 2025)

Ackerman v Road Accident Fund (34965/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 472 (6 May 2025)

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.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 472
Parties
Plaintiff: Benjamin Leigh Ackerman; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 May 2025
Case Number
34965/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Request for Reasons Under Rule 49(1)(c) Following Default Judgment
Outcome
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.
Judges
MPN Mbongwe
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Road Accident Fund Claim, Past Medical Expenses, Proof of Submission
Civil Procedure Delict Default Judgment Road Accident Fund Claim Past Medical Expenses Proof of Submission

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Leigh Ackerman

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Request for Reasons Under Rule 49(1)(c) Following Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the cost of a flight as part of past medical expenses from the Road Accident Fund.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient proof was provided that the flight expense claim was submitted to the Road Accident Fund.

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.

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.