Ruabenheimer obo Dlamini v Road Accident Fund (9380/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 149 (19 February 2024)

Ruabenheimer obo Dlamini v Road Accident Fund (9380/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 149 (19 February 2024)

The application was dismissed because the Practice Directive relied upon by the applicant (Directive 1 of 2021, paragraph 49) had been expressly repealed and replaced by a new directive as of 22 May 2023. The new directive requires that applications to make settlement agreements orders of court be enrolled on the general civil trial roll and leaves the granting of such orders to the discretion of the presiding judge. The court held that it was not empowered to compel the Defendant to sign joint submissions under the repealed directive, nor to grant the alternative relief sought. The applicant's reliance on the outdated directive was misplaced, and the procedure now falls under the revised...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 149
Parties
Applicant: Advocate Ruabenheimer NO obo Goodman Mbongiseni Dlamini; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 February 2024
Case Number
9380/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Application to Compel Compliance With Practice Directive
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Cajee
Legal Topics
Practice Directives, Settlement Agreements, Consent Orders, Curator Ad Litem, Road Accident Fund Liability
Civil Procedure Land and Property Practice Directives Settlement Agreements Consent Orders Curator Ad Litem Road Accident Fund Liability

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advocate Ruabenheimer NO obo Goodman Mbongiseni Dlamini

Applicant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Interlocutory Application to Compel Compliance With Practice Directive

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can compel the Defendant to sign joint submissions in support of a settlement agreement under the now-repealed Practice Directive 1 of 2021.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to approach the Registrar to have the settlement made an order of court absent Defendant's cooperation.
  3. 3 Whether the new Practice Directive issued in May 2023 governs the procedure for making settlement agreements orders of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the Practice Directive relied upon by the applicant (Directive 1 of 2021, paragraph 49) had been expressly repealed and replaced by a new directive as of 22 May 2023. The new directive requires that applications to make settlement agreements orders of court be enrolled on the general civil trial roll and leaves the granting of such orders to the discretion of the presiding judge. The court held that it was not empowered to compel the Defendant to sign joint submissions under the repealed directive, nor to grant the alternative relief sought. The applicant's reliance on the outdated directive was misplaced, and the procedure now falls under the revised...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.