FirstrandBank Limited t/a Wesbank v Raesetsa Geberal Trading CC t/a RA Motors (5836/2019) [2020] ZALMPPHC 22 (14 February 2020)
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Case number
5836/2019
Judge
MG Phatudi
The High Court granted summary judgment for repossession, holding that a plea alone does not resist summary judgment without a proper opposing affidavit or oral evidence.
Mahlangu v Road Accident Fund (26159/14) [2018] ZAGPPHC 312 (25 April 2018)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
26159/14
Judge
Sello
The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to comply with section 19(f) of the Road Accident Fund Act because no valid accident affidavit was submitted.
Letzler N.O obo Van Zyl v RAF (34634/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 351 (12 March 2018)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
34634/2015
Judge
Ranchod
The court refused to admit an uninsured driver’s signed statement as evidence at trial because it was not an affidavit and did not comply with Rule 38(2).
Scott v Road Accident Fund (13/33469) [2015] ZAGPJHC 120 (11 June 2015)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
13/33469
Judge
R Keightley
The court held that the Road Accident Fund Act does not require the submission of an affidavit under section 19(f)(i) as a prerequisite for lodging a claim. The claim is validly lodged when the prescribed claim form is delivered, and the five-year prescription period applies. The failure to submit an affidavit or to provide full particulars only operates to terminate an existing claim if the Fund can prove a deliberate refusal or failure by the claimant. In this case, Ms Scott suffered amnesia and was unable to provide details of the accident, which was not a deliberate failure. Therefore, he…
Thugwana v Road Accident Fund (530/04) [2005] ZASCA 141; [2006] 2 All SA 135 (SCA); 2006 (2) SA 616 (SCA) (30 November 2005)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
530/04
Judges
Harms, Brand, Nugent, Mlambo, Cachalia
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that regulation 2(1)(c) of the Road Accident Fund Act imposes a substantive requirement for liability, namely the submission of an affidavit to the police within the prescribed period. Non-compliance with this requirement is fatal to the claim. Section 24(5) only regulates procedural aspects and cannot cure substantive defects arising from failure to comply with regulation 2(1)(c). The court endorsed the reasoning in Krischke v Road Accident Fund, confirming that section 24(5) does not revive claims that have not arisen due to non-compliance with substantive r…
