Road Accident Fund and Others v Mautla and Others (29459/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2001 (1 December 2023)

Road Accident Fund and Others v Mautla and Others (29459/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2001 (1 December 2023)

The court found that the decisions under review had direct, external legal effect once implemented, as they affected the rights of claimants to submit claims and receive statutory acknowledgment, thereby impacting prescription and enforceability. These decisions were thus reviewable under PAJA. The court held there was no legal requirement for orders to specify statutory provisions, and the applicable claim form was the 2008 RAF1 form, as the subsequent form was never lawfully in use during the relevant period. The grounds advanced for leave to appeal did not establish reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons. The application for leave to appeal was refused, and a punitive...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 2001
Parties
Applicant: Road Accident Fund; Applicant: Msibi, T N.O; Applicant: Letsoalo, C N.O; Respondent: Mautla, Lesedi Dikeledi; Respondent: Steyn, Antoinette Elizabeth Bianca; Respondent: Dippenaar, Germari; Respondent: Strauss, Johannes Christoffel; Respondent: Siluma, Nomthandazo Elizabeth; Respondent: Kuboko, Sinovuyo; Respondent: Radebe, Nonhlanhla Cecilia; Respondent: Ndima, Opola; Respondent: W E Emergency Respond Team (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2023
Case Number
29459/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; punitive costs order granted against the applicants.
Judges
Opperman, Millar, Ally
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Review of Administrative Action, Leave to Appeal, Costs Orders
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Review of Administrative Action Leave to Appeal Costs Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Road Accident Fund

Applicant

Msibi, T N.O

Applicant

Letsoalo, C N.O

Applicant

Mautla, Lesedi Dikeledi

Respondent

Steyn, Antoinette Elizabeth Bianca

Respondent

Dippenaar, Germari

Respondent

Strauss, Johannes Christoffel

Respondent

Siluma, Nomthandazo Elizabeth

Respondent

Kuboko, Sinovuyo

Respondent

Radebe, Nonhlanhla Cecilia

Respondent

Ndima, Opola

Respondent

W E Emergency Respond Team (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decisions under review constituted administrative action subject to PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the court order was ambiguous regarding the applicable RAF1 claim form.
  3. 3 Whether the order was defective for not specifying statutory provisions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the decisions under review had direct, external legal effect once implemented, as they affected the rights of claimants to submit claims and receive statutory acknowledgment, thereby impacting prescription and enforceability. These decisions were thus reviewable under PAJA. The court held there was no legal requirement for orders to specify statutory provisions, and the applicable claim form was the 2008 RAF1 form, as the subsequent form was never lawfully in use during the relevant period. The grounds advanced for leave to appeal did not establish reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons. The application for leave to appeal was refused, and a punitive...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; punitive costs order granted against the applicants.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The First Applicant for leave to appeal is ordered to pay the costs of each of the Respondents in the application for leave to appeal as between attorney and client, including costs consequent upon the employment of three counsel where so engaged.