L.M obo L[...] and L.M v Road Accident Fund (43630/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 761 (22 July 2025)

L.M obo L[...] and L.M v Road Accident Fund (43630/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 761 (22 July 2025)

The court found that the references to rescinding the Nyathi J order in the applicant's replying affidavit were neither scandalous, vexatious, nor irrelevant. The applicant had made its intention to seek rescission clear in its founding affidavit, and the new matter was relevant to the issues in dispute. However, the respondent was prejudiced by not being afforded an opportunity to respond to the new matter, and the applicant appropriately conceded this point and tendered costs. Regarding the Supplementary Notice of Motion, the court held that the applicant failed to comply with Rule 28 by not giving notice of its intention to amend and allowing the respondent an opportunity to object....

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 761
Parties
Plaintiff: L[...] M[...] obo L[...] and L[...] M[...]; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 July 2025
Case Number
43630/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Interlocutory / Interlocutory Applications: Application to Strike Out and Application to Set Aside Supplementary Notice of Motion
Outcome
The application to strike out is dismissed. The application in terms of Rule 30(2) is upheld with costs. The respondent is granted leave to file an affidavit addressing the new matter within twenty days.
Judges
N.N Bam
Legal Topics
Rule 6 15 Striking Out, Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings, Amendment of Notice of Motion, Rescission of Judgment
Civil Procedure Rule 6 15 Striking Out Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings Amendment of Notice of Motion Rescission of Judgment

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L[...] M[...] obo L[...] and L[...] M[...]

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Interlocutory / Interlocutory Applications: Application to Strike Out and Application to Set Aside Supplementary Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the references to rescinding the Nyathi J order in the applicant's replying affidavit are scandalous, vexatious, or irrelevant and should be struck out.
  2. 2 Whether the Supplementary Notice of Motion filed by the applicant constitutes an irregular step for failing to comply with Rule 28.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was prejudiced by the new matter introduced in the applicant's replying affidavit without an opportunity to respond.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the references to rescinding the Nyathi J order in the applicant's replying affidavit were neither scandalous, vexatious, nor irrelevant. The applicant had made its intention to seek rescission clear in its founding affidavit, and the new matter was relevant to the issues in dispute. However, the respondent was prejudiced by not being afforded an opportunity to respond to the new matter, and the applicant appropriately conceded this point and tendered costs. Regarding the Supplementary Notice of Motion, the court held that the applicant failed to comply with Rule 28 by not giving notice of its intention to amend and allowing the respondent an opportunity to object....

Court Disposition

The application to strike out is dismissed. The application in terms of Rule 30(2) is upheld with costs. The respondent is granted leave to file an affidavit addressing the new matter within twenty days.

Orders

  • The application to strike out is dismissed. The Fund must pay the respondent's costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The respondent must file an affidavit dealing with the new matter in the applicant's replying affidavit within twenty days from the date of this order.