About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1945
|
|
Dzingai v Road Accident Fund (6462/21) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1945 (29 November 2023)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO:6462/21
(1)
REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: NO
Date: 29
November 2023
E van der Schyff
In
the matter between:
DZINGA
DZINGAI
PLAINTIFF
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT FUND
DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
Van
der Schyff J
[1]
The plaintiff
instituted a claim for damages against the Road Accident Fund (the
Fund). The plaintiff testified that the accident
occurred on 17 June
2017. The hospital records also indicate that the plaintiff was
admitted to the hospital for injuries caused
by a motor vehicle
accident on 17 June 2018. The plaintiff, however, deposed to an
affidavit on 22 June 2018 stating that he was
involved in an accident
on 13 June 2018. He was not asked to explain why he indicated the
date of 13 June 2018 as the date that
the accident occurred.
[2]
The plaintiff’s
case was closed after his evidence was led. I asked counsel to
indicate whether the claim was properly lodged
with the Fund. He
referred me to the RAF 1 form. I noted that the medical practitioner
signed the RAF 1 form on 24 June 2020. I
requested counsel to upload
proof that the claim was lodged with the Fund, and it transpired that
it was only lodged via email
on 28 July 2020.
[3]
Since this claim arises
from the driving of a so-called unidentified vehicle, the claim had
to be lodged with the Find within two
years of the accident
occurring. Since 24 June 2020 supersedes the two-year cut-off date, I
asked counsel to file written heads
of argument addressing the issue
of whether the court can
mero
motu
take
cognisance of the fact that the claim was not lodged with the Fund
within the prescribed two-year period, whether this is
a
jurisdictional requirement or an issue of prescription, and if it is
an issue of prescription, whether the court may raise it.
[4]
The defendant
subsequently filed a notice of intention to amend its Plea and raise
the issue of prescription as a defence.
[5]
The heads of argument
subsequently filed on 27 November 2023 do not address these issues
comprehensively with reference to case
law. Since important questions
of law arise in this matter, I am of the view that it is imperative
that counsel file comprehensive
heads of argument wherein they
substantiate their viewpoint with reference to case law. Since the
plaintiff may decide to object
to the amendment of the Plea, the
matter can also not be finalised at this point in time. To assist the
parties, I will retain
the matter. Once both parties have filed
comprehensive supplementary heads of argument, the plaintiff’s
counsel may approach
my registrar for the matter to be set down
again. The parties’ attention is drawn to the fact that I am
unavailable between
March and June 2024.
ORDER
In
the result, the following order is granted:
1.
The matter is postponed
sine
die
.
2.
Both parties are requested to file
supplementary heads of argument. The defendant must file its heads
within ten days of the plaintiff’s
heads being filed;
3.
The matter is retained by Van der Schyff
J,
4.
The plaintiff’s attorney may
approach Van der Schyff J’s registrar when the parties are in a
position to argue the issues
raised in the judgment above.
5.
Costs are reserved.
E van der Schyff
Judge of the High Court
Delivered:
This judgement is handed down electronically by uploading it to the
electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.
It will be emailed to
the parties/their legal representatives as a courtesy gesture.
For the plaintiff:
Adv. M.L. Ndou
Instructed by:
M.H.P. Malesa
Attorneys
For the defendant:
Ms. M. Potelo
Instructed by:
State Attorney,
Pretoria
Date of the
hearing:
22 November 2023
Date of judgment:
29 November 2023