Road Accident Fund v Longmans (66649/16) [2025] ZAGPPHC 591 (2 June 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 591
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 66649/16
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 66649/16
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the Fund was fully aware of the hearing date and chose not to attend or oppose the order. The Fund's argument for rescission was based on the merits of the evidence, specifically the lack of reassessment by an orthopaedic surgeon, rather than any procedural error. The court found that Rule 42(1)(a) is intended to address procedural errors, not to provide a mechanism for parties to challenge the substance of the evidence after judgment has been granted. The application for rescission was brought within a reasonable time, but the grounds advanced were unsound and amounted to an impermissible attempt to appeal under the guise of rescission. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Court disposition
Application for rescission dismissed with costs on scale B.
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs on scale B.
02
Material facts
Parties
Road Accident Fund
Applicant Counsel: Att LT MakhuraBrandon Lyle Longmans
Respondent Counsel: Adv MP FourieAmounts and remedies
- Loss of Earnings Awarded to Respondent (after Apportionment): ZAR 6,052,365
03
Procedural history
Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Judgment/order Under Rule 42(1)(a)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the order granted on 2 August 2024 should be rescinded under Rule 42(1)(a).
- 02
Whether the Fund's failure to attend the hearing constitutes an error justifying rescission.
- 03
Whether the merits of the evidence can be challenged in a rescission application.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Fund argued that the order was erroneously sought and granted because Mr Longmans had not been reassessed by an orthopaedic surgeon as previously recommended, and that this omission constituted an error under Rule 42(1)(a). The Fund did not dispute awareness of the hearing date and admitted it chose not to attend. It sought condonation for any delay in bringing the application, explaining that time was spent attempting to settle the matter before launching the application.
- Respondent
- Mr Longmans contended that the Fund was aware of the hearing and chose not to oppose the order. The respondent argued that the Fund's grounds for rescission related to the merits of the evidence, not procedural error, and that such grounds are not applicable in a rescission application. The respondent maintained that there was no error in seeking or granting the order and that the Fund could have arranged for reassessment prior to the hearing.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 42(1)(a)
Rule 42(1)(a) allows for rescission of an order erroneously sought or granted in the absence of a party affected thereby.
- 02
Standard South African civil procedure principles
Rescission applications must be based on procedural error, not on the merits of the evidence presented.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the Fund was fully aware of the hearing date and chose not to attend or oppose the order. The Fund's argument for rescission was based on the merits of the evidence, specifically the lack of reassessment by an orthopaedic surgeon, rather than any procedural error. The court found that Rule 42(1)(a) is intended to address procedural errors, not to provide a mechanism for parties to challenge the substance of the evidence after judgment has been granted. The application for rescission was brought within a reasonable time, but the grounds advanced were unsound and amounted to an impermissible attempt to appeal under the guise of rescission. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that even if the Fund's email regarding reassessment had been received by the respondent's attorneys before the order was sought, there was no obligation on them to delay proceedings.
- The court observed that the Fund could have taken steps to arrange reassessment prior to the hearing but failed to do so.
Court disposition
Application for rescission dismissed with costs on scale B.
- The application is dismissed with costs on scale B.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case No: 66649/16
(1) REPORTABLE: No
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No
(3)
REVISED
2 June 2025
WRIGHT J
In the matter between:
ROAD
ACCIDENT
FUND
Applicant
and
BRANDON
LYLE LONGMANS
Respondent
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
1. On 15 August 2015, Mr Longmans was injured in a motor vehicle accident. Summons was issued against the Fund, claiming damages. On 8 June 2018, the Fund agreed to be liable for 80% of Mr Longmans’ damages. Some time prior to 2 August 2024, the parties had settled their differences on all heads of damages save for loss of earnings.
2. The matter was set down for trial on 2 August 2024 on the question of loss of earnings.
3. Numerous expert reports by doctors and an actuary were filed on behalf of Mr Longmans. These reports become evidence, according to modern practice, when affidavits by the experts confirming the correctness of their reports are filed and the affidavits, read together with the reports are allowed into evidence by the court under Rule 38(2).
4. There is on file an actuarial addendum report dated 17 May 2024, in which it is calculated that the correct figure for loss of earnings, after the deduction of the agreed 20% apportionment against Mr Longmans, is R6 052 365. The actuary, Mr Pretorius confirmed the correctness of the report in an affidavit filed on record.
5. On 2 August 2024, there was appearance for Mr Longmans but none for the Fund. The matter was allocated to Kubushi J. Counsel for Mr Longmans sought and obtained an order in terms of a draft order prepared by him in which R6 052 365 was sought.
6. The Fund now seeks to rescind the order of 2 August 2024. It relies only on Rule 42(1)(a), it being alleged that the order was erroneously sought and granted.
7. The Fund does not suggest that it was unaware of the set down for 2 August 2024. Nor does it suggest that it tried to send a legal practitioner to the hearing. The answering affidavit makes it clear that the Fund was well aware of the court date but chose not to attend.
8. The Fund raises one point. It says that the order was erroneously sought and granted because some years earlier, Dr Liebenberg, an orthopaedic surgeon retained by Mr Longmans had submitted a report in which he recommended that Mr Longmans be reassessed later to see if a tibia-fibula non-union had healed or not. The re-assessment had not taken place by 2 August 2024.
9. At 12:29 pm on 2 August 2024, a person employed by the Fund emailed the attorneys for Mr Longmans stating that Mr Longmans had not been reassessed despite having been called for reassessment. At 1pm on the same day, the attorneys for Mr Longmans replied, stating that the court had already granted the order.
10. On 13 August 2024, the attorneys for the Fund requested reasons from Kubushi J for her order. These were supplied on 6 September 2024.
11. The present application is dated 10 October 2024. It includes a prayer for condonation of the non-compliance by the Fund with time periods. Rule 42(1)((a) does not specify a time within which an application should be brought. The Fund explains that it spent some time attempting to settle the matter before launching the application. In my view, the application was brought within a reasonable time and falls to be dealt with on its merits.
12. In my view, the application for rescission is unsound. The Fund chose not to oppose the order sought. It cannot now attempt an appeal by labelling it a rescission. There was no error in seeking the order or in granting it. The Fund could have timeously taken steps to have Mr Longmans reassessed. It did not.
13. The ground for rescission now raised has nothing to do with procedure. It is an attack on the merits of the evidence. This ground of attack is not applicable in a rescission application.
14. It is not at all clear that the email sent by the Fund at 12:29pm on the day of the order was received by Mr Longmans’ legal practitioners before they sought the order. Even if it was, there was no obligation on them not to proceed.
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed with costs on scale B.
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD : 2 June 2025
DELIVERED : 2 June 2025
APPEARANCES :
Applicant Att LT Makhura
Instructed by State Attorney Mr LT Makhura lehlogonolom@raf.co.za Ramadimestsam@raf.co.za Respondent Adv MP Fourie mfourie@gkchambers.co.za Instructed by Scott Els Attorneys Inc scott@selegal.co.za
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.