Sefara v Road Accident Fund (2312/2016) [2022] ZAGPPHC 59 (8 February 2022)

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
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAGPPHC 59
|

|

Sefara v Road Accident Fund (2312/2016) [2022] ZAGPPHC 59 (8 February 2022)

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/ NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED.
08.02.2022
CASE NO:
2312/2016
In the matter between:
D M
SEFARA
Plaintiff
and
THE ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND
Defendant
REASONS
CRUTCHFIELD
J:
[1]        The plaintiff requested
reasons in respect of the deletion of the provision for costs
from
the order granted by me on 30 August 2021 (the ‘order’) in
this matter.
[2]        The order required
payment by the defendant, the Road Accident Fund (‘Fund’), of
an
amount of R2 909.47 in respect of past medical expenses to the
plaintiff.
[3]        I refused to grant the
plaintiff’s costs, including on the Magistrates’ Courts’
scale,
as a mark of this Court’s displeasure at the plaintiff approaching
this Court, a High Court, that is overburdened with the
number of
matters that require its attention, for payment of an amount of
R2 909.47.
[4]        The purpose of my
refusal to grant the costs order was to deprive the plaintiff’s
legal representatives of their fees for the hearing on 30 August
2021. It is wholly unacceptable for legal representatives to
incur
the costs of approaching this Court for the amount claimed before me.
[5]        The plaintiff, in its
request for reasons for the order, alluded to the fact that the
plaintiff is not able to recover its disbursements, as a result of
the order.
[6]        However, the court
order granted on 20 July 2018 in this matter, provided for payment
by
the Fund of the costs of the medico-legal and ancillary reports
including those of Dr E Mennen, the Orthopaedic Surgeon; Ms A
Greeff,
the Occupational Therapist; Dr A Pauw, Clinical Psychologist; Mr K
Prinsloo Industrial Psychologist and Argen Actuarial Solutions.
[7]         In the
circumstances, paragraphs 6.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.6 and 6.2.7 of the
draft
order sought by the plaintiff before me on 30 August 2021, had
been ordered previously by this court on 20 July 2018. In the
circumstances,
there is no prejudice to the plaintiff arising from
the deletion of paragraphs 6.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.6 and 6.2.7 from
the order
granted by me.
[8]        As regards paragraph
6.2.5 of the plaintiff’s draft order in respect of the costs
and
time spent travelling consequent on an inspection
in loco
, I
was not addressed on the necessity of such an order.
[9]        Accordingly, the only
aspect of the costs that I effectively refused to grant was the
costs
of the plaintiff’s legal representatives’ appearance before me.
Insofar as the plaintiff states that they expected to be
granted
costs on the scale applicable to the Magistrates’ Courts, I refused
to grant even those costs for the appearance before
me such was my
displeasure at the plaintiff’s legal representatives seeing fit to
approach this Court on the basis aforementioned.
[10]     In the circumstances, the order granted
by me provided as follows:
1.          The
defendant is liable towards the plaintiff for payment in the amount
of R2 909.47 (two thousand nine hundred and nine rand and forty
seven cents), computed as follows:
1.1.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of
R2 909.47
(two thousand nine hundred and nine rand and forty seven cents) in
respect of past medical expenses.
1.2.
The amount mentioned in paragraph 1.1 above is to be
paid to the
plaintiff within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the date of
this Court order.
1.3.
In the event of the aforesaid amount not being paid
timeously, the
defendant shall be liable for interest on the amount at the rate of
7% per annum, calculated fourteen (14) days after
the date of this
order to date of payment as set out in
Section 17(3)(a)
of the
Road
Accident Fund Act, 56 of 1996
.
2.          The order
records that there is no contingency fee agreement between the
plaintiff and the plaintiff’s attorneys, Spruit Incorporated
Attorneys.
CRUTCHFIELD
J
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION
JOHANNESBURG
Electronically submitted therefore unsigned
Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Acting
Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically
by
circulation to the Parties / their legal representatives by email and
by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
CaseLines.
The date of the reasons is deemed to be 8 February 2022.
COUNSEL FOR
THE APPLICANT
Ms Worthington.
INSTRUCTED BY:

Spruit Attorneys