About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPJHC 467
|
|
Vombe v Road Accident Fund (2019/39788) [2023] ZAGPJHC 467 (12 May 2023)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO:
2019/39788
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER
JUDGES
REVISED
12.05.23
In the matter between:
VOMBE,
CARLITOS VASCO
PLAINTIFF
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT FUND
DEFENDANT
Neutral Citation
:
Vombe
Carlitos Vasco v Road Accident Fund
(Case
No: 39788/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 467 (12 May 2023)
JUDGMENT –
WRIGHT J
WRIGHT
J
1.
The plaintiff seeks
default judgment at trial, the defence of the RAF having been struck
out. Ms Steyn appears for the plaintiff
and Ms Makhathini for the
RAF.
2.
I allowed Ms Makhathini
to address me as in my view, I need to consider various questions.
Both Ms Steyn and Ms Makhathini presented
helpful argument.
3.
Ms Makhathini seeks a
postponement. The plaintiff, she says is a foreigner and this may
well impact on the question of what he may
claim. There appears to be
pending, the case of Adam Mudawo v Minister of Transport and the RAF.
Such a case appears on caselines
as a case in Pretoria under number
11795/22. The issue seems to be the legality of a directive issued by
the RAF concerning foreigners.
4.
Ms Mkakhathini suggests
that there is case, possibly between the same parties pending in the
Constitutional Court. I could not find
such a case on the
Constitutional Court website, but Ms Makhathini may well be correct.
In my view, it does not matter for present
purposes whether or not
the Mudawo case, or a similar case is before the High Court in
Pretoria or the Constitutional Court.
5.
I am told that my
brother, Baqwa J postponed recently a similar case in the
Johannesburg High Court for this reason. That case appears
to be
Chola v RAF 4182/19.
6.
In my view, it would be
wise to postpone the present case pending a decision on the matter.
7.
A judge faced with a
request for judgment at trial following a striking out of the defence
still needs to consider the evidence
and the law before granting an
order.
8.
There seems to be
disagreement between the parties as to the factual circumstances
surrounding the plaintiff’s status and
in the circumstances,
even if the matter were to proceed now, I would want clarification,
from both sides, as to the correct factual
situation.
ORDER
1.
The trial is postponed
sine die.
2.
Costs reserved.
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division,
Johannesburg
HEARD
: 11 and 12 May 2023
DELIVERED
: 12 May 2023
APPEARANCES
:
PLAINTIFF
Adv
Lindi Steyn
steyn.lindi@vdelaw.co.za
082 264
0068
Instructed
by
Van
Der Elst Attorneys
011 731
0000
rhino@vdelaw.co.za
DEFENDANT
State
Attorney
Phindile
Makhathini
073 689
4920
phindilem1@raf.co.za