Marcus v Road Accident Fund (12325/15) [2022] ZAGPPHC 792 (24 October 2022)

Marcus v Road Accident Fund (12325/15) [2022] ZAGPPHC 792 (24 October 2022)

The court found that the grounds of appeal did not meet the threshold required by section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, as there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. The oral submissions introduced new assertions not covered in the filed grounds of appeal, and counsel conceded certain findings of the original judgment. The court held that the grounds of appeal were not properly and unambiguously set out as required by Rule 49. The threshold for granting leave to appeal is higher than before, requiring certainty that another court would differ, which was not demonstrated. Accordingly, leave to appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 792
Parties
Appellant: Kali Motlatsi Marcus; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 October 2022
Case Number
12325/15
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench After Default Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Raikane
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Loss of Earning Capacity, Expert Evidence, Contingency Deductions
Civil Procedure Delict Leave to Appeal Loss of Earning Capacity Expert Evidence Contingency Deductions

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kali Motlatsi Marcus

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench After Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the dismissal of his claim for loss of earnings.
  2. 2 Whether the court erred in its assessment of expert evidence and actuarial calculations.
  3. 3 Whether the grounds of appeal were properly and unambiguously set out in terms of Rule 49.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds of appeal did not meet the threshold required by section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, as there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. The oral submissions introduced new assertions not covered in the filed grounds of appeal, and counsel conceded certain findings of the original judgment. The court held that the grounds of appeal were not properly and unambiguously set out as required by Rule 49. The threshold for granting leave to appeal is higher than before, requiring certainty that another court would differ, which was not demonstrated. Accordingly, leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to cost is made.