Mabunda v Road Accident Fund (20802/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 26 (1 January 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 26
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Pienaar
- Case number
- 20802/2020
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Pienaar
- Case number
- 20802/2020
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the plaintiff's claim for loss of earnings was increased from R2 million to R4.2 million in argument without a formal amendment to the pleadings as required by Rule 28. The absence of such amendment constitutes non-compliance with the Uniform Rules of Court. The court determined that it could not make a determination on the quantum for loss of earnings under these circumstances, as doing so would undermine procedural fairness and expose the judgment to rescission and further delays. The court therefore removed the matter from the roll to protect its process and avoid prejudicing the parties.
Court disposition
The matter is removed from the roll. No order as to costs.
Orders
- The matter is removed from the roll.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Tshiamo Lunga Mabunda
Plaintiff Counsel: Adv B J NodadaRoad Accident Fund
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- General Damages: ZAR 500,000
- Loss of Earnings (pleaded): ZAR 2,000,000
- Loss of Earnings (argued): ZAR 4,200,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Action / Default Judgment Roll
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the plaintiff's claim for loss of earnings can be adjudicated in the absence of a formal amendment to the pleadings.
- 02
Whether the quantum for loss of earnings argued at R4.2 million, rather than the pleaded R2 million, is procedurally valid.
- 03
Whether the matter should proceed to judgment or be removed from the roll due to non-compliance with procedural rules.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff argued for an award of R4.2 million for loss of earnings, relying on heads of argument and previous settlement of merits and general damages. The plaintiff contended that the quantum should be determined based on the evidence and submissions made, despite the original claim for R2 million in the pleadings. The plaintiff served all necessary notices and sought finalization of the matter.
- Respondent
- The defendant did not appear and did not file any opposing papers. The matter proceeded on the default judgment roll. The defendant was served with the notice of set down and the notice of motion but did not respond or participate in the proceedings.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Nkala v Harmony Gold Mining Co Ltd
Amendments to pleadings can be brought by any party any time before judgment is delivered, but must comply with Rule 28 of the Uniform Rules of Court.
- 02
Nkala v Harmony Gold Mining Co Ltd
Pleadings are closed when all parties have joined issue and no further pleadings are filed, or the time for replication has expired, or parties agree in writing, or the court declares pleadings closed.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's claim for loss of earnings was increased from R2 million to R4.2 million in argument without a formal amendment to the pleadings as required by Rule 28. The absence of such amendment constitutes non-compliance with the Uniform Rules of Court. The court determined that it could not make a determination on the quantum for loss of earnings under these circumstances, as doing so would undermine procedural fairness and expose the judgment to rescission and further delays. The court therefore removed the matter from the roll to protect its process and avoid prejudicing the parties.
Obiter and limits
- It is unfortunate that the plaintiff had to wait for the court to remove the matter from the roll, but the court must protect its process.
- A decision in these circumstances would likely attract a rescission application and further delay finalization, increasing costs for the parties.
Court disposition
The matter is removed from the roll. No order as to costs.
- The matter is removed from the roll.
- No order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO: 20802/2020
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 1/1/2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
TSHIAMO LUNGA
MABUNDA
Plaintiff/Applicant
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT
FUND
Defendant/Respondent
JUDGEMENT
PIENAAR (AJ)
1. This matter came before me on the default judgment roll on 3rd October 2024. This is a claim for injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of of the motor vehicle accident on 21 August 2015.
2. The issue of merits has been previously settled at 100% in favour of the Plaintiff and General Damages for the amount of R500 000,00. [1]
3. The Plaintiff served the notice of set down on 6 September 2024 on the Defendant. [2]. The notice of motion application was served on the Defendant on 14 December 2022, which is already two years before the date of hearing of 3rd October 2024.
4. The court heard arguments on the Loss of Earnings of the matter. The Court reserved judgment as it wanted to consider a claim of this amount of R4,2 million rands, particularly where it consisted largely of future loss of earnings.
5. In preparing the judgment the Court discovered that the claim for loss of earnings was originally for R2 million but according to the Heads of Argument, Counsel argued an amount of R4, 2 million for Loss of Earnings.
6. There is no amendment filed in terms of Rule 28 by the Plaintiff. Notice of Bar was served on the Defendant on 21st October 2022.
7. In Nkala v Harmony Gold Mining Co Ltd it was stated that—
“The issue as to when the stage of litis contestatio is reached in the modern-day law is a complicated one. It is reached when pleadings are closed. But this is no simple matter. Guidance as to when pleadings are closed can be found in Rule 29 of the Uniform Rules of Court. It advises that pleadings are closed if all parties to the case have joined issue and there are no longer any new or further pleadings, or the time period for the filing of a replication has expired, or the parties have agreed in writing that the pleadings have closed and have filed their agreement with the registrar of the court, or the court, on application, has declared that the pleadings are closed. At that point the pleadings are treated as being closed and the proceedings are said to have reached the stage of litis contestatio. In everyday practice, they are normally closed as soon as the period for the filing of the replication has expired, for at that stage the issues have become identified and parties are able to commence preparation for battle. Pleadings, though closed, will be re-opened should an amendment be effected, or should the parties agree to alter the pleadings.
Amendments to pleadings can be brought by any party any time before judgment is delivered.”
8. In these circumstances the Court had reserved judgment on the quantum, but when considering the non-compliance with the rules of Court and the position this places the RAF in, the Court is not willing to make a determination on the issue of loss of earnings.
9. It is unfortunate that the Plaintiff had to wait for the Court to remove the matter from the roll. It is not something the Court wishes to visit on the plaintiff. However, the Court must protect its process. It also weighs with the Court that a decision, in these circumstances would attract a rescission application and ultimately delay the finalization of the matter more and increase the costs for the parties involved.
Order
10. As result the following order is granted:
The matter is removed from the roll.
No order as to costs.
PIENAAR M
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines. As a courtesy gesture, it will be sent to the parties/their legal representatives by email.
Counsel for the Plaintiff : Adv B J Nodada Instructed by : Mashiyi S Attorneys Date of hearing : 03rd October 2024 Date of judgment : 31 December 2024
1. Caselines, item 2 : RAF Settlement documents, item 1, pg 02-1
2. Caselines 12 : Notice of Set down, item 3
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.