Makhopa v Road Accident Fund (2018/29169) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1241 (28 November 2024)

Makhopa v Road Accident Fund (2018/29169) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1241 (28 November 2024)

The court found that the defendant was not properly before the court due to its failure to enter an appearance to defend. Furthermore, the defendant did not present any evidence of a special plea, and the allegations regarding prescription remained unproven. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence and causation, as the affidavit submitted lacked sufficient detail about the accident and the plaintiff's involvement was not corroborated by the police docket or accident report. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1241
Parties
Plaintiff: Makhopa Tumelo Jan; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2024
Case Number
2018/29169
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits and Quantum Separated; Quantum Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Pienaar
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Onus of Proof, Prescription, Special Plea, Section 19 Affidavit
Civil Procedure Delict Road Accident Fund Act Onus of Proof Prescription Special Plea Section 19 Affidavit

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

Parties

Makhopa Tumelo Jan

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits and Quantum Separated; Quantum Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is properly before the court due to failure to enter an appearance to defend.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's failure to respond to an objection letter under Section 24 read with Section 17(1) of the RAF Act leads to prescription of the claim.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's failure to raise a special plea during the pre-trial conference affects the validity of the prescription defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant was not properly before the court due to its failure to enter an appearance to defend. Furthermore, the defendant did not present any evidence of a special plea, and the allegations regarding prescription remained unproven. The plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence and causation, as the affidavit submitted lacked sufficient detail about the accident and the plaintiff's involvement was not corroborated by the police docket or accident report. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with no order as to costs.