Motloung v Road Accident Fund (36275/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 804 (15 October 2014)

Motloung v Road Accident Fund (36275/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 804 (15 October 2014)

The exception was withdrawn by the Plaintiff upon receipt of a letter from the Defendant rejecting the serious injury assessment and requiring the Plaintiff to be examined by the Defendant's medical practitioner. The court found that the exception was without merit, as the Plaintiff had not pleaded delivery of the RAF 4 Form or the absence of objection by the Defendant. However, the Defendant was also at fault for failing to object timeously to the RAF 4 Form and for late filing of Heads of Argument and practice note. Both parties contributed to unnecessary proceedings. In the interests of fairness and justice, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs arising from the exception.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 804
Parties
Plaintiff: Motloung Makhosi Mirriam; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 October 2014
Case Number
36275/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Plea; Interlocutory Costs Determination
Outcome
Exception withdrawn; each party to bear its own costs arising from the exception.
Judges
AJ Louw
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Serious Injury Assessment, Exception to Plea, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Delict Road Accident Fund Act Serious Injury Assessment Exception to Plea 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Motloung Makhosi Mirriam

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Plea; Interlocutory Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's plea contains sufficient averments to sustain the defence regarding general damages for non-pecuniary loss.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant was precluded from disputing the serious injury assessment due to failure to object within the prescribed period.
  3. 3 Which party should bear the costs of the withdrawn exception.

Ratio Decidendi

The exception was withdrawn by the Plaintiff upon receipt of a letter from the Defendant rejecting the serious injury assessment and requiring the Plaintiff to be examined by the Defendant's medical practitioner. The court found that the exception was without merit, as the Plaintiff had not pleaded delivery of the RAF 4 Form or the absence of objection by the Defendant. However, the Defendant was also at fault for failing to object timeously to the RAF 4 Form and for late filing of Heads of Argument and practice note. Both parties contributed to unnecessary proceedings. In the interests of fairness and justice, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs arising from the exception.

Court Disposition

Exception withdrawn; each party to bear its own costs arising from the exception.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff and the Defendant are each liable for her/its own costs arising from the exception dated 2 July 2014.