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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPJHC 392
|
|
Hamufari v Road Accident Fund (5092/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 392 (5 March 2024)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 5092/2021
1.
REPORTABLE:
NO
2.
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES
3.
REVISED: NO
5 March 2024
In the matter between:
TATSERE SILIAS
HAMUFARI
Plaintiff
and
ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND Defendant
JUDGMENT
WEIDEMANAJ
[1]
This is an
ex
tempore
judgment in matter number 6 on
the Special Interlocutory Court roll, case number 5092/2021 being the
matter of Tatsere Silias Hamufari
and the Road Accident
Fund.
The
issue
that was
raised
by
Adv Kok in this matter related to a paragraph contained in the
Consolidated Practice Directives 1 of 2024 and which took effect
on
the 26 February
2024.
[2]
Sub-paragraph
27.14
of the Practice Directive reads as follows:
"The SIC will not
deal with applications to compel a party to attend a pre-trial
meeting unless the matter has been submitted
to the registrar for
decision, as provided for in rule 37(3)(b) of the Uniform Rules of
Court."
[3]
The proposition that was put to Adv Kock is
that a request for a pre-trial conference cannot be entertained in
the Special Interlocutory
Court, given the content of paragraph
27.14. Adv Kok argued that on a proper interpretation of the said
section 27.14, read with
the rule of court to which it refers, Rule
37(3)(b), the Special Interlocutory Court retains its jurisdiction to
hear matters in
respect of which
there
has been no engagement from the defaulting or
delinquent party
(my
emphasis). He argued that Uniform Rule of Court 37(3)(b) reads as
follows:
"If the parties do
not agree on the date, time of place for the pre-trial conference,
the matter shall be submitted to the
registrar for decision."
[4]
Adv Kok argued that the implication is that
Rule 37(3)(b) only relates to those matters where there has been
engagement between
the parties, but the parties could not agree
on a date,
time
and place
for a
pre-trial
conference.
As such the rule does not apply
to a situation
where
there
has been no engagement.
[5]
Having taken opportunity
to consider the matter I believe that it
could never have been the intention
of
the Practice
Directives
to add a burden to the office of the
Registrar that it did not anticipate.
It
could never have been the intention
to deal with matters
where there has been no engagement and that these matters cannot, and
should not, be dealt with on the same
basis as where the parties are
unable to agree on a date, time of place for a pre-trial meeting as
is envisaged in rules 37(3}(b).
[6]
As such I find that, if there is proper
documentary proof of attempts to engage the delinquent partly and
that there was no response,
it remains open for an aggrieved party to
approach the Special Interlocutory
Court
for relief in the form of a compelling
order to attend
a
pre-trial conference.
ORDER
Having been persuaded
that there have been sufficient documentary attempts to engage the
delinquent party and having heard counsel
it is ordered that:
1.
The respondent shall complete and
sign the applicant's pre-trial agenda within 10 days of service of
this order on the respondent,
alternatively shall nominate a date,
time and place within 10 days of service of this order on which date
the respondent will be
available for a formal pre-trial conference.
2.
If the respondent fails to comply
with paragraph 1 of this order the respondent's defence will ipso
facto be struck out on the 11th
day after the date of the service of
this order on the Defendant and the applicant may then approach the
registrar for a date for
hearing on the default trial roll.
3.
The respondent is to pay the cost of
this application.
4.
I hand down the order which I have
marked "S".
D. WEIDEMAN
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
This judgment was handed
down electronically by circulation to the parties' representatives by
email, by being uploaded to Case
Lines.
The date and time for
hand-down is deemed to be 5 March 2024.
Heard on:
05 March 2024
Delivered on:
05 March 2024
Appearances:
Appellant:
Adv PJ KOK
082
316 2333
pierre@advokadopierre.co.za
Instructed by
Wim Krynauw Attorneys inc
0119555454
janelle@wkattorneys.co.za
RESPONDENT
RAF
Instructed by
State Attorneys
Elias Mdlovu
eliasmataleni@raf.co.za