Road Accident Fund v Yangbonga and Another (2021/9373) [2025] ZAGPJHC 122 (28 January 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPJHC 122
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 2021/9373
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 2021/9373
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the Road Accident Fund failed to establish a case for urgency in its application to interdict the sale in execution of its assets. The Fund's allegations regarding the first respondent's immigration status were vague, and it was unclear when the Fund formed its view or why condonation was required. The application was accordingly struck off the roll with costs, as the requirements for urgent relief were not met.
Court disposition
Application struck off the roll with costs on scale A.
Orders
- The application is struck off the roll with costs on scale A.
02
Material facts
Parties
Road Accident Fund
Applicant Counsel: Ms P MakhathiniYangbonga, Bibiche Singo
Respondent Counsel: Adv DB Du PreezThe Sheriff of the High Court: District of Johannesburg
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Interdict Sale in Execution; Struck Off for Lack of Urgency
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application by the Road Accident Fund to interdict the sale in execution of its assets is urgent.
- 02
Whether condonation is required and, if so, for what purpose.
- 03
Whether the Fund has made out a case for urgency.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Road Accident Fund seeks to urgently interdict the sale in execution of its assets, arguing that a settlement was made an order of court but it has since discovered that the first respondent is allegedly an illegal foreigner. The Fund wishes to have a rescission application heard and refers to condonation in its founding affidavit, although the basis for condonation is unclear.
- Respondent
- The respondents oppose the application, contending that the Fund has not established urgency and that the writ was issued approximately a year ago. They argue that the Fund's allegations regarding the first respondent's status are vague and that no proper case for condonation or urgency has been made out.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court
An applicant seeking urgent relief must set out clear grounds for urgency and demonstrate why the matter cannot be heard in the ordinary course.
- 02
Ferris and Another v FirstRand Bank Ltd [2014] ZACC 22
Condonation must be sought with specificity, stating the nature of the non-compliance and reasons for delay.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the Road Accident Fund failed to establish a case for urgency in its application to interdict the sale in execution of its assets. The Fund's allegations regarding the first respondent's immigration status were vague, and it was unclear when the Fund formed its view or why condonation was required. The application was accordingly struck off the roll with costs, as the requirements for urgent relief were not met.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the Fund's reference to condonation in its founding affidavit was unclear and not supported by the notice of motion.
- The issuing of the writ approximately a year prior undermined the Fund's claim of urgency.
Court disposition
Application struck off the roll with costs on scale A.
- The application is struck off the roll with costs on scale A.
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 DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2021/9373
1. Reportable: No
2. Of interest to other judges: No
3. Revised
28 January 2025
ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND
Applicant
and
YANGBONGA,
BIBICHE SINGO
First Respondent
THE SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT: Second Respondent
DISTRICT OF JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
1. The RAF seeks urgently to interdict a sale in execution of its assets. A settlement was made an order of court but the Fund says that it is now aware that the first respondent is an illegal foreigner and it wants to have a rescission application heard.
2. The Fund is vague on when it formed the view that the first respondent was an illegal foreigner. A writ was issued as early as about a year ago.
3. In the founding affidavit, but not in the notice of motion, the RAF seeks
condonation. For what is not clear.
4. A case for urgency is not made out.
ORDER
1. Struck off with costs on scale A. –
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD : 28 January 2025
DELIVERED : 28 January 2025
APPEARANCES :
Applicant Ms P Makhathini
State Attorney from RAF
Instructed by Road Accident Fund
Respondent Adv DB Du Preez
niel@dup.co.za
083 375 0209
Instructed by Van Der Elst inc
011 731 0000
litagation@vdelaw.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.