Pheeha v Road Accident Fund (10431/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 709 (2 November 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZAGPPHC 709
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- G C Wright
- Case number
- 10431/15
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- G C Wright
- Case number
- 10431/15
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
On the undisputed facts, the only reasonable inference is that the driver of the truck was negligent in moving into the plaintiff's lane and causing the collision. The defendant did not contest this inference. Accordingly, the defendant is liable for all agreed or proven damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the accident. The court ordered the defendant to furnish a certificate under section 17(4) of the Road Accident Fund Act for future costs and to pay the plaintiff's costs relating to the merits. The issue of quantum was postponed sine die.
Court disposition
Defendant found liable for all agreed or proven damages arising from the collision. Quantum postponed sine die.
Orders
- The defendant is liable for all of the plaintiff's agreed or proven damages arising out of the collision which occurred on 18 September 2013.
- The defendant is to furnish the plaintiff with a certificate under section 17(4) of the Road Accident Fund Act in respect of future costs as referred to in that section.
- The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs to date insofar as they relate to the question of the merits.
- Questions of quantum are postponed sine die.
02
Material facts
Parties
Jetro Mohlabeng Pheeha
Plaintiff Counsel: Adv PJ CoetseeRoad Accident Fund
Defendant Counsel: Adv I T Khumalo03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Determination
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the plaintiff can prove negligence on the part of the driver of the other vehicle.
- 02
Whether the defendant is liable for the plaintiff's damages arising from the collision.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff contended that the driver of the truck was negligent in overtaking and then moving into the left lane, causing a collision with the plaintiff's vehicle and resulting in injury. The plaintiff relied on the sequence of events and the absence of any other relevant facts to establish negligence.
- Respondent
- The defendant, represented by Mr Khumalo, did not dispute the facts or contest the inference of negligence. The defendant conceded liability for the plaintiff's damages arising from the collision.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law of delict
Where a driver overtakes and then moves into another lane, causing a collision, negligence may be inferred from the circumstances.
- 02
Road Accident Fund Act, section 17(4)
The Road Accident Fund is liable for damages proven to arise from negligent driving causing injury.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
On the undisputed facts, the only reasonable inference is that the driver of the truck was negligent in moving into the plaintiff's lane and causing the collision. The defendant did not contest this inference. Accordingly, the defendant is liable for all agreed or proven damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the accident. The court ordered the defendant to furnish a certificate under section 17(4) of the Road Accident Fund Act for future costs and to pay the plaintiff's costs relating to the merits. The issue of quantum was postponed sine die.
Court disposition
Defendant found liable for all agreed or proven damages arising from the collision. Quantum postponed sine die.
- The defendant is liable for all of the plaintiff's agreed or proven damages arising out of the collision which occurred on 18 September 2013.
- The defendant is to furnish the plaintiff with a certificate under section 17(4) of the Road Accident Fund Act in respect of future costs as referred to in that section.
- The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs to date insofar as they relate to the question of the merits.
- Questions of quantum are postponed sine die.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 10431/15
DATE: 02.11.2017
In the matter between:
JETRO
MOHLABENG
PHEEHA
PLAINTIFF
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT
FUND
DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
[1] It is common cause that the plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff was driving a vehicle. By agreement the only issue before me is whether or not the plaintiff can prove negligence on the part of the driver of the other vehicle.
[2] The following facts are common cause. The plaintiff was driving his vehicle in the left hand lane of a two lane road. A truck overtook him on his right hand side. The truck, when moving to its left immediately after passing the plaintiffs vehicle, clipped the right hand side of the plaintiff's vehicle cause the plaintiff to lose control of his vehicle which led to the plaintiff's injuries. It is common cause that there are no further relevant facts.
[3] On these facts the only inference to be drawn is that the other driver was negligent and that the plaintiff is entitled to all his agreed or proven damages. Mr Khumalo for the defendant quite sensibly did not suggest otherwise.
ORDER
1. The defendant is liable for all of the plaintiffs agreed or proven damages arising out of the collision which occurred on 18 September 2013.
2. The defendant is to furnish the plaintiff with a certificate under section 17(4) of the Road Accident Fund Act in respect of future costs as referred to in that section.
3. The defendant is to pay the plaintiffs costs to date insofar as they relate the question of the merits.
4. Questions of quantum are postponed sine die.
______
G
CWRIGHT
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Adv PJ COETSEE
Instructed by:
LEDWABA ATTORNEYS
Counsel for the Defendant: Adv I T
KHUMALO
Instructed by:
PULE INC
Date of Hearing:
02 November 2017
Date of Judgment:
02 November 2017
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.