Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Xolile v Road Accident Fund (6517/19) [2023] ZAGPJHC 448 (9 May 2023)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was credible and uncontested. The accident was caused solely by the negligent driving of an unknown motorist who left the road and struck the plaintiff on the pavement. The defendant's defence was struck out, and no evidence was presented to challenge the plaintiff's version. Accordingly, the Road Accident Fund is 100% liable for the plaintiff's agreed or proven damages arising from the accident. The court further ordered the defendant to furnish an undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act for future medical costs and postponed the issue of quantum sine die.

Court disposition

Default judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff on the merits; defendant held 100% liable for damages; quantum postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The defendant is 100% liable for the plaintiff's agreed or proven damages arising from the accident.
  • The defendant is ordered to furnish the plaintiff with an Undertaking in terms of Section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act, 56 of 1996, for costs arising out of the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle collision of 17 March 2017, after such costs have been incurred and upon proof thereof.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of suit on party-and-party scale.
  • The issue of quantum is postponed sine die.

02

Material facts

Parties

Kumalo Xolile

Plaintiff Counsel: Adv. V.J. Chabane

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Default Judgment / Merits

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The plaintiff argued that he was injured when an unknown vehicle left the road, mounted the pavement, and struck him while he was walking. He contended that the driver's negligent conduct was the sole cause of the accident and that the Road Accident Fund is liable for his damages under the Road Accident Fund Act. He presented evidence of his injuries and the circumstances of the accident.
Respondent
The defendant did not appear and did not present any argument. Its defence was previously struck out for failure to comply with a court directive.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996

    A plaintiff must prove on a balance of probabilities that the negligent driving of a motor vehicle caused the injuries for which damages are claimed.

  2. 02

    Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 31(2)(a)

    Where the defendant's defence is struck out and the plaintiff's evidence is compelling and uncontested, the court may grant default judgment on the merits.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was credible and uncontested. The accident was caused solely by the negligent driving of an unknown motorist who left the road and struck the plaintiff on the pavement. The defendant's defence was struck out, and no evidence was presented to challenge the plaintiff's version. Accordingly, the Road Accident Fund is 100% liable for the plaintiff's agreed or proven damages arising from the accident. The court further ordered the defendant to furnish an undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act for future medical costs and postponed the issue of quantum sine die.

Obiter and limits

  • The matter was not ripe to proceed on quantum and was limited to the merits of the action.
  • The judgment was delivered electronically and is deemed handed down at 16h00 on 09 May 2023.

Court disposition

Default judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff on the merits; defendant held 100% liable for damages; quantum postponed sine die.

  • The defendant is 100% liable for the plaintiff's agreed or proven damages arising from the accident.
  • The defendant is ordered to furnish the plaintiff with an Undertaking in terms of Section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act, 56 of 1996, for costs arising out of the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle collision of 17 March 2017, after such costs have been incurred and upon proof thereof.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of suit on party-and-party scale.
  • The issue of quantum is postponed sine die.

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.

Source document

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Judgment

[2023] ZAGPJHC 448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION,

JOHANNESBURG

Case No:6517/19

NOT REPORTABLE

NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER

JUDGES

REVISED

25.04.23

In the matter between:

KUMALO

XOLILE Plaintiff and

ROAD

ACCIDENT FUND Defendant

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

NEUTRAL CITATION: Kumalo v RAF (Case No: 6517/19) [2023] ZAGP JHC 448 (9 May 2023)

INTRODUCTION

[1] This is an application for default judgment, pursuant to a delictual claim instituted by the plaintiff, Mr. Kumalo Xolile, against the defendant, the Road Accident Fund.

[2] The matter proceeded on a default basis because the defendant’s defence was struck out on 8 October 2021, for its failure to comply with a compelling directive issued on 15 July 2021.

[3] The matter was to proceed on both merits and quantum. I formed the view however, that the matter was not ripe to proceed on quantum and limited myself to the merits of the action.

THE MERITS

[4] The plaintiff resides in Etsolo in the Eastern Cape and has been so resident since birth. On or about 17 March 2017, at or near Lansdowne Road in Khayelitsha, the plaintiff was walking on the pavement. He was knocked over by a motor vehicle, which he didn’t see approaching. The vehicle left the driveable road area, skipped the pavement and collided with the plaintiff. The driver of the unknown vehicle fled the scene of the accident.

[5] After he was knocked over by the vehicle, the plaintiff’s friend, who accompanied him, called an ambulance, which transported the plaintiff to the Khayelitsha Hospital, where he was admitted. The plaintiff sustained numerous injuries in the accident, notably he lost the use of his right arm.

[6] The evidence presented by the plaintiff was compelling and I have no hesitation in accepting the truthfulness thereof.

[7] It is immediately apparent that the negligent driving of the driver of the unknown vehicle, as claimed by the plaintiff in his Particulars of Claim, was the sole cause of the accident.

[8] In the result I make an order herein that the defendant shall be 100% liable for the plaintiff’s agreed or proven damages arising from the accident.

ORDER

1. The defendant is 100% liable for the plaintiff’s agreed or proven damages arising from the accident.

2. The defendant is ordered to furnish the plaintiff with an Undertaking in terms of Section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act, 56 of 1996, for the costs arising out of the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle collision of 17 March 2017, after such costs have been incurred and upon proof thereof.

3. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of suit on party-and-party scale.

4. The issue of quantum is postponed sine die.

B. FORD

Acting Judge of the High Court

Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg

Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected on 09 May 2023 and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their legal representatives by e mail and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. The date for hand-down is deemed to be16h00 on 09 May 2023.

Date of hearing: 25 January 2023

Date of judgment: 09 May 2023

Appearances:

For the plaintiff: Adv. V.J. Chabane Instructed by: Mahlathi Dlamini Bhengu Inc For the defendant: No appearance

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 31(2)(a)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.