About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAFSHC 414
|
|
Mateyise obo Yakhanani v Road Accident Fund - Application for Leave to Appeal (487/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 414 (23 October 2023)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Reportable: YES/NO
Of
Interest to other Judges: YES/NO
Circulate
to Magistrates: YES/NO
Case
number:487/2021
In
the matter between:
MATEYISE:
ZIKIWE obo YAKHANANI
Applicant
And
ROAD
ACCIDENT FUND
Respondent
HEARD
ON:
This
application was
determined
on the basis of written arguments instead of an oral hearing.
JUDGMENT
BY:
DANISO, J
DELIVERED
ON:
23
OCTOBER 2023
[1]
This is an unopposed application for leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Appeal directed at
my judgment and order handed down on 15
June 2023 dismissing the applicant’s claim for loss of earning
capacity.
[2]
The application is by consent of the applicant determined on the
basis of written heads of argument
and it is predicated on the
grounds that the Supreme Court of Appeal “could reasonably come
to a different conclusion.”
[3]
The application does not comply with Rule 49(1)(b) in that it was
lodged on 07 July 2023, beyond
the fifteen days contemplated in Rule
49(1)(b) and no condonation has been sought for the applicant’s
non-compliance with
the court rules. That aside, leave to appeal can
only be granted only if I am certain that the appeal would not
“could"
have a reasonable prospect of success. There must
be a measure of certainty that another court would render a different
judgment
than the one impugned. (See section 17 (1) (a) (i) of
the Superior Court Act
10 of 2013
).
It
does not end there, in the notice of motion leave to appeal is sought
to the Supreme Court of Appeal whereas no
question of law of
importance or conflicting issues of law have been raised in both the
notice of application and the heads of argument
which could require
the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
[4]
The grounds of the appeal as embodied in the notice and
the
written heads of argument are essentially based on the premise that
this court erred in dismissing the applicant’s claim
this court
disregarded the applicant’s evidence proffered to substantiate
the claim and accepted the defendant’s controverting
evidence.
I have dispassionately considered the grounds of appeal including the
heads of argument and I am of the view that
I
have adequately dealt with all these aspects in my judgment for that
reason, I am not persuaded that the issues raised by the
applicant in
this application would have reasonable prospects of success. There
are also no compelling reasons why the appeal should
be heard.
[5]
In the result, I make the following order:
1.
The application for
leave to appeal is dismissed.
NS
DANISO, J
Counsel
on behalf of Applicant:
M.C.
Baloyi
Instructed
by:
S.B.
SESHIBE ATTORNEYS
BLOEMFONTEIN
Counsel
on behalf Respondent:
Ms.
J. Gouws
Instructed
by:
THE
STATE ATTORNEY
BLOEMFONTEIN