Munyaradzi v Road Accident Fund (31742/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 571 (10 June 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPJHC 571
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Yacoob
- Case number
- 31742/2019
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- Yacoob
- Case number
- 31742/2019
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found it unacceptable that the matter was allowed to remain on the roll when it was not ready for trial, especially given the severe backlog and long waiting periods for court dates. The filing of a practice note indicating readiness, when in fact the matter was not ready, constituted conduct requiring explanation. Accordingly, the court removed the matter from the roll, reserved costs for determination by the trial court, and ordered the plaintiff's attorney to file an affidavit explaining his conduct and providing reasons why he should not be ordered to pay the costs of the postponement de bonis propriis.
Court disposition
Matter removed from the roll; costs reserved; plaintiff's attorney to file affidavit regarding conduct and possible de bonis propriis costs.
Orders
- The matter is removed from the roll.
- Costs are reserved to be determined by the trial court.
- The plaintiff’s attorney is to file an affidavit explaining his conduct and providing reasons to the trial court why they should not be ordered to pay the costs of the postponement de bonis propriis.
02
Material facts
Parties
Kambanje Munyaradzi
ApplicantRoad Accident Fund
Respondent Counsel: Ms Mhlongo03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Trial / Pre Trial Removal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the matter should be removed from the roll due to lack of readiness for trial.
- 02
Whether costs of the postponement should be reserved for determination by the trial court.
- 03
Whether the plaintiff's attorney should be required to explain conduct and face possible de bonis propriis costs.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel for the applicant indicated he was only briefed to remove the matter and was not available for trial, as his name was placed on the practice note by the attorney. He stated that certain documents were still outstanding, necessitating the removal.
- Respondent
- Respondent's counsel confirmed that documents were outstanding on their side as well and that there was supposed to be a removal by agreement with no order as to costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General principles of civil procedure
Where a matter is not ready for trial and a practice note is filed indicating readiness, the court may reserve costs and require explanation from the responsible attorney.
- 02
South African case law on de bonis propriis costs
Attorneys may be ordered to pay costs de bonis propriis where their conduct causes unnecessary court proceedings or wastage of judicial resources.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found it unacceptable that the matter was allowed to remain on the roll when it was not ready for trial, especially given the severe backlog and long waiting periods for court dates. The filing of a practice note indicating readiness, when in fact the matter was not ready, constituted conduct requiring explanation. Accordingly, the court removed the matter from the roll, reserved costs for determination by the trial court, and ordered the plaintiff's attorney to file an affidavit explaining his conduct and providing reasons why he should not be ordered to pay the costs of the postponement de bonis propriis.
Obiter and limits
- The court emphasized the importance of not wasting judicial resources, especially in circumstances where the court roll is severely overburdened.
- Attorneys must ensure that matters are genuinely ready for trial before filing practice notes indicating readiness.
Court disposition
Matter removed from the roll; costs reserved; plaintiff's attorney to file affidavit regarding conduct and possible de bonis propriis costs.
- The matter is removed from the roll.
- Costs are reserved to be determined by the trial court.
- The plaintiff’s attorney is to file an affidavit explaining his conduct and providing reasons to the trial court why they should not be ordered to pay the costs of the postponement de bonis propriis.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 31742/2019
DATE: 2025-06-03
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO.
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO.
(3) REVISED.
In the matter between
KAMBANJE
MUNYARADZI
Applicant
and
ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND
Respondent
JUDGMENT
YACOOB, J:This matter was allocated to me for trial for today being set down for two to three days. A practice note was filed indicating that the matter was ready for trial. Thereupon it was allocated to me for hearing.
On counsel appearing, I was informed that counsel for the plaintiff was only briefed in order to remove the matter, that even though his name appears on the practice note, it was inserted by attorney and that counsel was, in fact, on trial in another matter today in this court.
He further indicated that the reason for the removal is that certain documents are still outstanding. The defendant’s counsel, Ms Mhlongo confirmed that on the defendant's side they were also looking for some documents and that, in fact, there was supposed to be a removal by agreement with no order as to costs.
However, in these circumstances where the matter was not ready for trial, and the attorney caused a practice note to be filed, indicating that the matter was ready for trial, and causing an allocation, in circumstances where it is well-known to the public that the Court’s roll is overrun and that people awaiting for court dates to 2031, it is unacceptable that the matter was allowed to remain on the roll when it was not ready.
For these reasons I consider it appropriate to reserve costs of the postponement to be determined by the trial court, and to require that the attorney for the plaintiff file an affidavit, explaining his conduct and providing reasons why he should not be ordered to pay the costs for today de bonis propriis.
I make the following order:
1. The matter is removed from the roll.
2. Costs are reserved to be determined by the trial court.
3. The plaintiff’s attorney is to file an affidavit explaining his conduct and providing reasons to the trial court why they should not be ordered to pay the costs of the postponement de bonis propriis.
YACOOB, J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE: ……………….
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.