Matshaba v Road Accident Fund (9862/18) [2025] ZAGPPHC 698 (30 June 2025)

Matshaba v Road Accident Fund (9862/18) [2025] ZAGPPHC 698 (30 June 2025)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to adduce reliable evidence to establish the correct date of the accident, as the Collision Report reflected 8 January 2015 and no testimony was led by the police officer who compiled the report. The affidavits presented were either not properly commissioned or did not sufficiently corroborate the plaintiff's version. The court held that, on a balance of probabilities, the plaintiff did not discharge the onus of proof required to succeed in his claim. Consequently, the matter was removed from the roll and no order as to costs was made.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 698
Parties
Plaintiff: Zacharia Aaron Matshaba; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 June 2025
Case Number
9862/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Default Judgment Roll
Outcome
Matter removed from the default judgment roll; no order as to costs.
Judges
Pienaar M
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Single Witness Testimony, Default Judgment
Civil Procedure Delict Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Single Witness Testimony Default 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zacharia Aaron Matshaba

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Default Judgment Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proving negligence on a balance of probabilities.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff established the correct date of the accident.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to grant default judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to adduce reliable evidence to establish the correct date of the accident, as the Collision Report reflected 8 January 2015 and no testimony was led by the police officer who compiled the report. The affidavits presented were either not properly commissioned or did not sufficiently corroborate the plaintiff's version. The court held that, on a balance of probabilities, the plaintiff did not discharge the onus of proof required to succeed in his claim. Consequently, the matter was removed from the roll and no order as to costs was made.

Court Disposition

Matter removed from the default judgment roll; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The matter is removed from the default judgment roll.
  • There is no order as to costs.