Ernest v Road Accident Fund [2023] ZAGPPHC 235; 21360/2017 (3 April 2023)

Ernest v Road Accident Fund [2023] ZAGPPHC 235; 21360/2017 (3 April 2023)

The court found that, although the grounds for leave to appeal were not elegantly framed, the applicant's contention that the original judgment failed to consider all relevant admissible evidence constituted a compelling reason to grant leave to appeal. The omission in the order regarding the apportionment of damages was a patent error, acknowledged by the applicant, and required correction. The court held that the application of the apportionment to the statutory undertaking for future medical and hospital expenses could result in the applicant being denied compensation, which further justified granting leave to appeal. Accordingly, the order was varied to reflect the correct...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 235
Parties
Plaintiff: Makhasa, Vongani Ernest; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 April 2023
Case Number
21360/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Liability and Quantum
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division; original order varied to reflect apportionment; costs to be costs in the appeal.
Judges
Millar
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Apportionment of Damages, Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Quantum of Damages
Civil Procedure Delict Leave to Appeal Apportionment of Damages Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Quantum of Damages

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Makhasa, Vongani Ernest

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Liability and Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original judgment failed to consider relevant admissible evidence led at trial.
  2. 2 Whether the apportionment of damages and statutory undertakings was correctly reflected in the order.
  3. 3 Whether there is a compelling reason to grant leave to appeal to the Full Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the grounds for leave to appeal were not elegantly framed, the applicant's contention that the original judgment failed to consider all relevant admissible evidence constituted a compelling reason to grant leave to appeal. The omission in the order regarding the apportionment of damages was a patent error, acknowledged by the applicant, and required correction. The court held that the application of the apportionment to the statutory undertaking for future medical and hospital expenses could result in the applicant being denied compensation, which further justified granting leave to appeal. Accordingly, the order was varied to reflect the correct...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division; original order varied to reflect apportionment; costs to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • The order granted on 21 February 2020 is varied to include the words 'limited to 20% thereof' at the end of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order (paragraphs [193] and [194] of the judgment).
  • The application for leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division.