Road Accident Fund Appeal Tribunal v Malan (A1/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 466 (14 June 2016)

Road Accident Fund Appeal Tribunal v Malan (A1/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 466 (14 June 2016)

The court found that the appellant had discharged the burden of proving that the documents requested by the respondent had been destroyed and do not exist. The evidence of the appellant, contained in the sworn statement of Dr Engelbrecht, established that the notes of the tribunal members were handed to the case administrator and thereafter destroyed. The trial court ought to have accepted this evidence, as there was no evidence by the respondent on oath to the contrary. The court a quo misdirected itself by rejecting Dr Engelbrecht's evidence as hearsay due to an error in the confirmatory affidavit of Mr Seisa, which was an obvious mistake that should have been condoned. The new evidence...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 466
Parties
Appellant: Road Accident Fund Appeal Tribunal; Respondent: Josias Alexander Malan
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 June 2016
Case Number
A1/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Orders of the Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs; order of the court a quo set aside.
Judges
E.M Kubushi, N.B Tuchten, N. Ranchod
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Review Record, Uniform Rule 35 12, Uniform Rule 53 3
Civil Procedure Discovery of Documents Review Record Uniform Rule 35 12 Uniform Rule 53 3

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Road Accident Fund Appeal Tribunal

Appellant

Josias Alexander Malan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Orders of the Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the documents requested by the respondent constituted part of the review record.
  2. 2 Whether the court a quo erred in directing the appellant to produce documents that do not exist.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant should be given leave to adduce new evidence to rectify the error in Mr Seisa's confirmatory affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant had discharged the burden of proving that the documents requested by the respondent had been destroyed and do not exist. The evidence of the appellant, contained in the sworn statement of Dr Engelbrecht, established that the notes of the tribunal members were handed to the case administrator and thereafter destroyed. The trial court ought to have accepted this evidence, as there was no evidence by the respondent on oath to the contrary. The court a quo misdirected itself by rejecting Dr Engelbrecht's evidence as hearsay due to an error in the confirmatory affidavit of Mr Seisa, which was an obvious mistake that should have been condoned. The new evidence...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs; order of the court a quo set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside.