South Africa Case Law

Brevis v Road Accident Fund (39035/2018)

Brevis v Road Accident Fund (39035/2018) [2024] ZAGPJHC 725 (12 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

39035/2018

Judge

Windell

The court held that the RAF cannot be compelled to file a summary of its neurologist's expert opinion under Rule 36(9)(b) when no report exists and the RAF has elected not to call any expert witnesses. The application was brought under Rule 36(9), which only applies where a party intends to call an expert witness and has a summary to provide. The court declined to evaluate the RAF's obligations under Rule 36(8) in the absence of proper argument and given the application was not brought under that rule. Accordingly, the relief sought was not competent and the application was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 36
• Expert Evidence
• Medical Examination
• Interlocutory Relief

Mohalalelo v John Tsietsi Aphiri t/a Aprhiri Attorneys (67331/2018)

Mohalalelo v John Tsietsi Aphiri t/a Aprhiri Attorneys (67331/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 568 (27 July 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

67331/2018

Judge

Holland-Muter

The High Court dismissed a recusal application, found no basis for bias or hostility, and ordered the defendant to pay wasted costs after late interlocutory steps delayed trial.

• Recusal Of Judge
• Trust Account Misappropriation
• Costs Award
• Interlocutory Application
• Medical Examination
• Plea Amendment

Road Accident Fund v Chin (23037/2016)

Road Accident Fund v Chin (23037/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 153; 2018 (3) SA 547 (WCC) (9 November 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

23037/2016

Judge

H Slingers

The court ordered the respondent to attend a medical examination by the RAF’s nominated doctor, finding her objections to that examiner were not substantiated.

• Uniform Rule 36
• Medical Examination
• Objection To Expert
• Similar Fact Evidence
• Right To Fair Trial
• Uniform-rule-36

Potgieter v Road Accident Fund (2416/2005)

Potgieter v Road Accident Fund (2416/2005) [2012] ZAECPEHC 46 (31 May 2012)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

2416/2005

Judge

P.W. Tshiki

The court held that the defendant is entitled under Rule 36(2) and (5) to require the plaintiff to undergo a second and final medical examination by its chosen clinical psychologist, as only one prior examination at the defendant's instance has occurred. The plaintiff's objections, including prior examinations by his own experts and other specialists, do not count towards the defendant's entitlement under the Rules. The court found that the proposed examination does not constitute an unreasonable invasion of the plaintiff's constitutional rights, as such rights may be limited in the interests…

Source excerpt

• Medical Examination
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Bodily Injury Compensation
• Rule 36 Procedure