Legoale and Others v Road Accident Fund (2019/31546; 2019/22794; 2019/31545; 2019/37216; 2019/29804) [2020] ZAGPJHC 366 (3 June 2020)

Legoale and Others v Road Accident Fund (2019/31546; 2019/22794; 2019/31545; 2019/37216; 2019/29804) [2020] ZAGPJHC 366 (3 June 2020)

Uniform Rule 36(9A) does not confer a right on plaintiffs to compel the defendant to agree to the appointment of joint experts. The rule merely encourages parties to endeavour to reach agreement but does not impose a positive obligation or provide a legal basis for the relief sought. The Practice Directive supports cooperation but does not alter the defendant's entitlement to elect whether to appoint experts. The applications should have been dealt with at a judicial case management conference, not by interlocutory application. The plaintiffs acted bona fide and in the spirit of the Directive, but their cause was misguided. Given the novelty of the legislative provisions and the absence...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 366
Parties
Plaintiff: Legoale, Kagiso Sonnyboy; Plaintiff: Mathebula, David Sonnyboy; Plaintiff: Mojadibe, Masipa Evan; Plaintiff: Shoko, Trevor; Plaintiff: Mophuting, Mmathepelo Gloria; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 June 2020
Case Number
2019/31546; 2019/22794; 2019/31545; 2019/37216; 2019/29804
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Defendant to Agree to Joint Experts Prior to Trial
Outcome
All interlocutory applications by the plaintiffs are dismissed. No order as to costs is made.
Judges
Adams
Legal Topics
Uniform Rule 36, Joint Experts, Practice Directive, Interlocutory Relief
Civil Procedure Uniform Rule 36 Joint Experts Practice Directive Interlocutory Relief

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Legoale, Kagiso Sonnyboy

Plaintiff

Mathebula, David Sonnyboy

Plaintiff

Mojadibe, Masipa Evan

Plaintiff

Shoko, Trevor

Plaintiff

Mophuting, Mmathepelo Gloria

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Defendant to Agree to Joint Experts Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Uniform Rule 36(9A) entitles plaintiffs to compel the defendant to agree to the appointment of joint experts.
  2. 2 Whether the Practice Directive 2 of 2019 provides a legal basis for the relief sought.
  3. 3 Whether the applications should be dealt with at a judicial case management conference rather than by interlocutory application.

Ratio Decidendi

Uniform Rule 36(9A) does not confer a right on plaintiffs to compel the defendant to agree to the appointment of joint experts. The rule merely encourages parties to endeavour to reach agreement but does not impose a positive obligation or provide a legal basis for the relief sought. The Practice Directive supports cooperation but does not alter the defendant's entitlement to elect whether to appoint experts. The applications should have been dealt with at a judicial case management conference, not by interlocutory application. The plaintiffs acted bona fide and in the spirit of the Directive, but their cause was misguided. Given the novelty of the legislative provisions and the absence...

Court Disposition

All interlocutory applications by the plaintiffs are dismissed. No order as to costs is made.

Orders

  • The interlocutory applications of the above plaintiffs against the Road Accident Fund under the above case numbers are all dismissed.
  • There shall be no costs orders in any of the interlocutory applications.