Segole v Road Accident Fund (16923/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 725 (21 July 2025)

Segole v Road Accident Fund (16923/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 725 (21 July 2025)

The court found that the prosecution of the claim by a trust account advocate, acting in the role of an attorney, contravened both section 19(c)(i) of the Road Accident Fund Act and section 34(2)(b) of the Legal Practice Act. The steps taken by Advocate Zitha after the termination of the attorney's mandate, including filing notices and amending pleadings, were not permitted by law. The late amendment to the quantum of the claim was not properly served and was procedurally unfair to the respondent. Furthermore, the expert reports submitted to prove quantum were based on inadmissible evidence, as there was no proof of the deceased's employment or income before the court. As a result, the...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 725
Parties
Applicant: Kgadi Josephine Segole; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 July 2025
Case Number
16923/2022
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment Application / Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application for default judgment refused.
Judges
Millar
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Legal Practice Act, Default Judgment, Loss of Support, Trust Account Advocate, Quantum of Damages
Civil Procedure Delict Road Accident Fund Act Legal Practice Act Default Judgment Loss of Support Trust Account Advocate Quantum of Damages

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kgadi Josephine Segole

Applicant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Default Judgment Application / Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trust account advocate may prosecute a Road Accident Fund claim in the manner of an attorney.
  2. 2 Whether the late amendment to the quantum of the claim was procedurally fair and properly served.
  3. 3 Whether the expert reports submitted were admissible and sufficient to prove the quantum of the claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the prosecution of the claim by a trust account advocate, acting in the role of an attorney, contravened both section 19(c)(i) of the Road Accident Fund Act and section 34(2)(b) of the Legal Practice Act. The steps taken by Advocate Zitha after the termination of the attorney's mandate, including filing notices and amending pleadings, were not permitted by law. The late amendment to the quantum of the claim was not properly served and was procedurally unfair to the respondent. Furthermore, the expert reports submitted to prove quantum were based on inadmissible evidence, as there was no proof of the deceased's employment or income before the court. As a result, the...

Court Disposition

Application for default judgment refused.

Orders

  • The application for default judgment is refused.