Mekula v Road Accident Fund (1987/2017) [2017] ZAECGHC 118 (31 October 2017)

Mekula v Road Accident Fund (1987/2017) [2017] ZAECGHC 118 (31 October 2017)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving that the proceedings would be more conveniently or appropriately heard in Port Elizabeth. The inconvenience claimed by the plaintiff was not substantiated, and the defendant would also be inconvenienced by a transfer due to its attorney allocation system. The location of expert witnesses and the fact that the merits had already been conceded did not justify removal. The application was premised solely on the plaintiff's alleged inconvenience, without proper regard for the defendant's position. Accordingly, the application for transfer was dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ZAECGHC 118
Parties
Plaintiff: Lindiwe Sylvia Mekula; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 October 2017
Case Number
1987/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Transfer of Proceedings
Outcome
Application for transfer dismissed with costs deferred until final determination of the main action.
Judges
J.D. Pickering
Legal Topics
Change of Venue, Superior Courts Act, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Change of Venue Superior Courts Act Costs Order

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

Lindiwe Sylvia Mekula

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Transfer of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has discharged the onus to justify transfer of the action from Grahamstown to Port Elizabeth.
  2. 2 Whether the convenience of the parties and the court warrants removal of the matter to another seat.
  3. 3 Whether the costs should be deferred until final determination of the main action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving that the proceedings would be more conveniently or appropriately heard in Port Elizabeth. The inconvenience claimed by the plaintiff was not substantiated, and the defendant would also be inconvenienced by a transfer due to its attorney allocation system. The location of expert witnesses and the fact that the merits had already been conceded did not justify removal. The application was premised solely on the plaintiff's alleged inconvenience, without proper regard for the defendant's position. Accordingly, the application for transfer was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for transfer dismissed with costs deferred until final determination of the main action.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • Such costs are not to be taxed and payable until the final determination of the main action.