Howell v Road Accident Fund (2019/28805) [2025] ZAGPJHC 401 (23 April 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPJHC 401
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 2019/28805
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 2019/28805
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the matter was not ripe for trial due to incomplete discovery by the defendant, Road Accident Fund. The newly uploaded documents, including the police docket and the alleged statement by Mr Howell, were not properly discovered and some were barely legible. The admissibility of the alleged 2018 police statement was disputed by the applicant and must be determined in a trial within a trial before it can be used in cross-examination. The court ordered that the defendant must discover by 5 May 2025, failing which the plaintiff may apply for the striking of the defence and the entering of judgment. Costs were reserved pending further clarity on the causes of delay.
Court disposition
The matter was removed from the roll, costs were reserved, and the defendant was ordered to discover by 5 May 2025, failing which the plaintiff may apply for the striking of the defence and judgment.
Orders
- The matter is removed from the roll.
- Costs are reserved.
- The defendant is to discover by 4pm on 5 May 2025, failing which the plaintiff may apply for the striking of the defence and the entering of judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
02
Material facts
Parties
Herbert James Knockies Howell
Applicant Counsel: Adv A LouwRoad Accident Fund
Respondent Counsel: Att M Madesele03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Trial / Pre Trial Interlocutory Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the matter is ripe for trial given the state of discovery.
- 02
Whether the police statement allegedly made by Mr Howell in 2018 is admissible.
- 03
Whether costs should be reserved pending further discovery.
- 04
Whether the defendant should be compelled to discover by a specified date.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant, Mr Howell, through Adv Louw, argued that the trial should proceed and indicated readiness to call Mr Howell and possibly two other witnesses on the merits. He disputed the admissibility of the alleged 2018 police statement and agreed that the affidavit dated 19 March 2018 could be used for cross-examination. He suggested that the RAF be compelled to discover by 5 May 2025, failing which the defence could be struck and judgment entered.
- Respondent
- The respondent, Road Accident Fund, represented by Att Madesele, denied liability and indicated intent to cross-examine Mr Howell on the alleged 2018 police statement. Madesele agreed to the applicant's proposal regarding discovery and the consequences of non-compliance. He uploaded documents to caselines, including the police docket and the disputed statement, but some were barely legible.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Uniform Rules of Court
A trial cannot proceed unless discovery is complete and the matter is ripe for hearing.
- 02
S v Mphala 1998 (1) SACR 388 (W)
The admissibility of a disputed statement must be determined in a trial within a trial before it can be used in cross-examination.
- 03
General principles of costs in civil procedure
Costs may be reserved where the cause of delay or non-compliance is unclear and subject to future determination.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the matter was not ripe for trial due to incomplete discovery by the defendant, Road Accident Fund. The newly uploaded documents, including the police docket and the alleged statement by Mr Howell, were not properly discovered and some were barely legible. The admissibility of the alleged 2018 police statement was disputed by the applicant and must be determined in a trial within a trial before it can be used in cross-examination. The court ordered that the defendant must discover by 5 May 2025, failing which the plaintiff may apply for the striking of the defence and the entering of judgment. Costs were reserved pending further clarity on the causes of delay.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the truth about the 2018 statement will hopefully be revealed in due course, allowing for a proper finding regarding the causes for the matter not proceeding.
- The judge commented on the dispute between counsel as to who was responsible for the delay in the trial commencing, but declined to make a finding at this stage.
Court disposition
The matter was removed from the roll, costs were reserved, and the defendant was ordered to discover by 5 May 2025, failing which the plaintiff may apply for the striking of the defence and judgment.
- The matter is removed from the roll.
- Costs are reserved.
- The defendant is to discover by 4pm on 5 May 2025, failing which the plaintiff may apply for the striking of the defence and the entering of judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
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 DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2019/28805
1. Reportable: No
2. Of interest to other judges: No
3. Revised
23 APRIL 2025
WRIGHT J
HOWELL, HERBERT JAMES
KNOCKIES
Applicant
and
ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND
Respondent
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
1. In this trial in which the plaintiff, Mr Howell claims damages from the RAF arising out of an alleged motor bike accident in 2017, Mr A Louw who appears for Mr Howell, asks that the trial proceed.
2. It would appear that there is agreement that the question of the merits be separated from that of quantum.
3. The RAF denies liability.
4. The matter was set down for trial starting yesterday, 22 April 2025. The matter was allocated to me yesterday afternoon and I was able to proceed today, over Teams, at 12 noon. Mr Madesele for the RAF had requested that I start today at 12 noon. There is some dispute between Mr Louw and Mr Madesele as to precisely who is to blame for the matter not proceeding earlier today than 12 noon.
5. The matter is not ripe for trial.
6. The RAF has not discovered and this morning it uploaded to caselines various documents, some of which are barely legible.
7. The newly uploaded documents include a copy of the police docket and include an apparent statement by Mr Howell to the police made in 2018 in which Mr Howell allegedly said that he remembered nothing of the accident.
8. Mr Louw indicated that he would call Mr Howell and possibly two other witnesses on the merits.
9. Mr Madesele indicated that he would seek to cross-examine Mr Howell on his alleged statement to the police in 2018.
10. During the course of debate, Mr Louw agreed that Mr Howell had made an affidavit dated 19 March 2018, at caselines 19-101 to 19-102, which is accurate and made freely and voluntarily. This affidavit, it was agreed by Mr Louw, could be used by Mr Madesele in cross-examining Mr Howell.
11. However, the alleged statement by Mr Howell to the police in 2018 would be the subject of a trial within a trial. Mr Madesele would not be allowed to cross-examine Mr Howell on this statement until its admissibility is proved. This is because Mr Louw disputed the admissibility of the 2018 statement.
12. Regarding costs, it appears, and I put it no higher than that, that Mr Howell in fact made a statement to the police in 2018. He has not discovered this statement.
13. Costs should be reserved. In due course the truth about the 2018 statement will hopefully be revealed. It is then that a proper finding about all the possible causes for the matter not proceeding today can be made.
14. Mr Madesele agreed to a suggestion by Mr Louw that the RAF discover by 5 May 2025 and that failing such discovery Mr Howell could apply for the striking of the defence and the entering of judgment.
ORDER
1. The matter is removed from the roll.
2. Costs reserved.
3. The defendant is to discover by 4pm on 5 May 2025, failing which the plaintiff may apply for the striking of the defence and the entering of judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD: 23 April 2025
DELIVERED: 23 April 2025
APPEARANCES :
Plaintiff Adv A Louw
antonlouw@law.co.za
Instructed by Potgieter R Attorneys
rudolph@potgieterattorneys.co.za
Defendant Att M Madesele
matimuma@raf.co.za
Instructed by Road Accident Fund
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.