Frandsen v Road Accident Fund (2018/85633) [2024] ZAGPJHC 442 (6 May 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPJHC 442
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Molahlehi
- Case number
- 2018/85633
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Molahlehi
- Case number
- 2018/85633
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, upon consideration of the grounds of appeal, the parties' submissions, and the previous judgment, there are reasonable prospects that the appeal court may reach a different conclusion regarding the dismissal of the applicant's damages claim. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was granted.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the full bench; costs to be in the appeal.
Orders
- The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the full bench of the Division.
- Costs are to be determined in the appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
Frandsen Frank Harold
Applicant Counsel: U JordaanThe Road Accident Fund
Respondent Counsel: N Moyo03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Damages Claim
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the dismissal of his damages claim.
- 02
Whether there are compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the court erred in dismissing his claim for damages arising from the motor cycle accident and that there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion. He relied on grounds set out in his notice of application for leave to appeal and submitted that the factual and legal findings warrant reconsideration.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the judgment was correct and that there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The respondent maintained that the applicant failed to demonstrate any misdirection or error in the court's reasoning and that no compelling reasons exist to grant leave to appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act
Leave to appeal may be granted only if the judge is of the opinion that there are reasonable prospects of success or other compelling reasons.
- 02
S v Smith 2012 (1) SACR 567 (SCA)
The test for leave to appeal is whether another court could reasonably arrive at a different conclusion.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, upon consideration of the grounds of appeal, the parties' submissions, and the previous judgment, there are reasonable prospects that the appeal court may reach a different conclusion regarding the dismissal of the applicant's damages claim. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was granted.
Obiter and limits
- The general approach to applications for leave to appeal is well established and must be strictly applied to ensure judicial efficiency.
- The costs of the application are to be determined in the appeal proceedings.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the full bench; costs to be in the appeal.
- The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the full bench of the Division.
- Costs are to be determined in the appeal.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
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.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2018/85633
1. Reportable: No
2. Of interest to other judges: No
3. Revised: No
6 May 2024
In the matter between:
FRANDSEN
FRANK HAROLD
Applicant
and
THE
ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND
Respondent
This Judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading to the electronic file on Case Lines. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 06 May 2024.
JUDGMENT:
LEAVE TO APPEAL
Molahlehi J,
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment made by this court on 27 October 2023 in terms of which the applicant’s
claim for damages arising from a motor cycle accident which occurred on 29 January 2017 was dismissed. The respondent opposed the
application.
[2] The general approach when dealing with the application for leave to appeal is now well established in our law. The test to be applied is provided for in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act requires that leave to appeal may be granted only where a judge is of the opinion that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal or that there are some other compelling reasons why leave to appeal should be granted.
[3] In considering the grounds of appeal, the submissions made by both parties and the judgment of this court I am of the view that there are reasonable prospects that the appeal court may arrive at a different conclusion than that of this court. I accordingly find that the application for leave to appeal stands to succeed.
Order
[4] In the circumstances, I make the following order:
1. The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the full bench of third Division with the costs to be in the appeal.
Molahlehi J
Judge of the High Court of South Africa
Appearances
For the Plaintiff: U Jordaan
Instructed by: Leon JJ Van Rensburg Attorneys
For the Defendant: N Moyo
Instructed by: State Attorneys
Hearing date: 15 April 2024
Delivered:
06 May 2024
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.