Venter v Road Accident Fund (5750/2021) [2025] ZAFSHC 112 (14 April 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAFSHC 112
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Daniso
- Case number
- 5750/2021
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Daniso
- Case number
- 5750/2021
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant failed to set out proper grounds for leave to appeal. The applicant sought to appeal aspects of the order that he himself requested and referenced paragraphs that do not exist in the impugned order. The court held that its reasoning regarding the contingency deduction was fully addressed in the judgment and that the applicant's grievance relates to the reasons for judgment, not the substantive order. The court was not persuaded that there was any reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion or that any compelling reason existed to warrant a hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Ruben Venter
Applicant Counsel: HJ Cilliers SCRoad Accident Fund
Respondent Counsel: C. BornmanAmounts and remedies
- Total Damages Awarded to Applicant: ZAR 3,586,820.69
- Past Hospital and Medical Expenses: ZAR 413,708.99
- Loss of Earnings/earning Capacity: ZAR 3,173,111.7
03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the court erred in applying a 40% contingency deduction to the applicant's pre-morbid future income instead of the standard 20%.
- 02
Whether the applicant established proper grounds for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act.
- 03
Whether an appeal can be noted against the reasons for judgment rather than the substantive order.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the court incorrectly applied a 40% contingency deduction to his pre-morbid future income, arguing that the accepted standard is 20%. He submits that another court would likely apply a lower contingency deduction and that the full bench would probably not uphold such a high deduction. The grounds of appeal are directed at specific paragraphs of the order and judgment, which the applicant claims were wrongly decided.
- Respondent
- The application for leave to appeal is unopposed. The respondent did not file heads of argument or contest the application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
s17(1)(a)(i) or (ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal should only be granted if there is a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion or if there is some compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.
- 02
Western Johannesburg Rent Board and Another v Ursula Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1948 (3) SA 353 (A) at 355
An appeal lies against the substantive order of the court, not against the reasons for judgment.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to set out proper grounds for leave to appeal. The applicant sought to appeal aspects of the order that he himself requested and referenced paragraphs that do not exist in the impugned order. The court held that its reasoning regarding the contingency deduction was fully addressed in the judgment and that the applicant's grievance relates to the reasons for judgment, not the substantive order. The court was not persuaded that there was any reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion or that any compelling reason existed to warrant a hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.
Obiter and limits
- The application was determined on the basis of written heads of argument by consent of the applicant.
- The judgment was delivered by email and released to SAFLII, deemed delivered at 14h00 on 14 April 2025.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
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.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION,
BLOEMFONTEIN
Not Reportable / Reportable
Case No: 5750/2021
In the matter between: VENTER:
RUBEN
APPLICANT And
THE
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION FOR
LEAVE TO APPEAL
DELIVERED: The judgment was delivered by email to the parties and release to SAFLII. It shall
be deemed to have been delivered at 14h00 on 14 April 2025
Daniso, J
[1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of this court delivered on 12 December 2024 revised on 15 January 2025.
[2] In terms of the order, judgment was granted in favour of the applicant on the following terms:
“1. …
2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the sum of R3 586 820.69 (Three Million Five Hundred and Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Rand and Sixty Nine Cents) within 180 (one hundred and eighty) days hereof, in respect of the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant for the following heads of damages:
2.1. Past Hospital and Medical Expenses
R413 708.99
which amount is calculated as follows:
2.1.1. R551 611.00
2.1.2. Less 25% liability apportionment: (R137 903.00)
2.1.3. = R413 708.99
2.2. Loss of Earnings/Earning Capacity R 3 173 111.70
2.2.1. Agreed nett value of past loss of earnings: (R59 716.00)
2.2.2. Gross value of pre-morbid future income: R14 892 875.00
2.2.3. Less 40% contingency deduction: (R5 957 150.00)
2.2.4. = Nett value of pre-morbid future income: R8 935 725.00
2.2.5. Gross value of post-morbid future income: R7 741 989.00
2.2.6. Less 40% contingency deduction: (R3 096 796.60)
2.2.7. = Nett value of post-morbid future income: R4 645 193.40
2.2.8. Total Loss = R3 173 111.70
2.2.8.1. Nett value of past loss of income: (R59 716.00)
2.2.8.2. Plus: Nett value of pre-morbid future income: R8 935 725.00.00
2.2.8.3. Less: Nett value of post-morbid future income: R4 645 193.40
2.2.8.4. = R4 230 815.60
2.2.8.5. Less 25% liability apportionment: (R1 057 703.90)
2.2.8.6. = R3 173 111.70...”
[3] The application is unopposed and is, by consent of the applicant, determined on the basis of written heads of argument.
[4] In the grounds of appeal, including the heads of argument, the applicant directs this application at a portion of the order, paragraphs: 2.1.3; 2.1.4; 2.1.5; 2.1.9.2 and 2.1.9.6 as well as paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment.
[5] It is the applicant’s case that this court erred in its conclusions as deliberated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment which resulted in its application of a 40% contingency deduction in respect of the applicant’s pre-morbid future income scenario instead of the standard or accepted 20% contingency deduction. Based on these reasons, the applicant contends that the full bench of this division “will probably only apply a pre-morbid future income contingency deduction of 20% or alternatively, will probably not apply as high of a pre-morbid contingency deduction (i.e. 40%) …”
[6] The principles governing applications of this nature are trite: I am only enjoined to grant leave to appeal if the applicant sets out facts which establish not just a mere possibility of success in the appeal but a measure of certainty that another court would render a different judgment than the one impugned or the existence of some or other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.[1]
[7] I am not persuaded that the applicant has set out proper grounds for the relief he seeks. Inexplicably, in respect of paragraph 2.1.3 the applicant seeks leave to appeal the order that he sought (see para 19 of the judgment).
[8] There are no paragraphs 2.1.4; 2.1.5; 2.1.9.2 and 2.1.9.6 in the impugned order that aside, I am of the view that in my judgment I have fully addressed the reasons for my findings pertaining to the percentage of the contingencies to be applied in this matter.
[9] With regard to the grievance against what is deliberated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment, it is tested law that an appeal can only be noted against the substantive order made by a Court and not against the reasons for judgment.[2]
[10] I am also not persuaded that there is any other reason warranting a hearing of this appeal. In the result, I make the following order:
ORDER
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
NS DANISO, J
On behalf of the applicant: Adv. HJ Cilliers SC Instructed by: A Wolmarans INC
BLOEMFONTEIN On behalf of the respondent: Ms. C. Bornman Instructed by:
THE
STATE ATTORNEY
BLOEMFONTEIN
[1] s17(1)(a) (i) or (ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013; Ramakatsa and Others v African Congress and Another (742/2019) [2021] ZASCA 31 (31 March 2021).
[2] Western Johannesburg Rent Board and Another v Ursula Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1948 (3) SA 353 (A) at 355.
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.