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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1004
|
|
Road Accident Fund v Hugo (Leave to Appeal) (2022/55136) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1004 (30 September 2024)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE
NO: 2022/55136
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED:
DATE
30 September 2024
SIGNATURE
In
the matter between:
ROAD
ACCIDENT FUND
APPELLANT
and
DESMOND
VINCENT
HUGO RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
(The
matter was heard in open court but judgment is handed down by
uploading the judgment onto the electronic file of the matter
on
CaseLines. The date of uploading the judgment onto CaseLines is
deemed to be the date of the judgment)
BEFORE:
HOLLAND-MUTER J:
[1]
The matter was set down for hearing as an application for default
judgement on 18 April 2024. At the hearing the plaintiff (now
respondent) informed the court of a notice of intention to defend was
emailed to the plaintiff’s attorneys’ office
by the State
Attorney’s Office after office hours on 17 April 2024. The
matter was postponed to 16 May 2024 to afford the
now appellant the
opportunity to explain why the belated notice of intention to defend
was out of time, whether it not amount to
an abuse of process and why
the belated notice of intention to defend should not be struck.
[2]
The matter was argued on 16 May 2024 but the appellant
failed/neglected to file or present any evidence by affidavit or
orally
to explain its belated conduct. Judgement was delivered on 12
August 2024 and the application for leave to appeal is aimed against
this judgment. Counsel on behalf of the appellant argued that the
appellant is not compelled to explain the belatedness or to move
for
any condonation for non-compliance with the Rules of Court in
general.
[3]
Having read the application for leave to appeal, the written heads of
arguments, hearing counsel for the parties and taking
into account
the provisions of section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Court
Act, 10 of 2013, the court deems it in the interest
of justice that
the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) consider the issue and
interpretation of Rule 19(5) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
[4]
I am satisfied that my interpretation is judicially sound but the SCA
may differ in view of the conflicting interpretation thereof
by the
parties. I am of the view that the appellant’s continued
belated filing of notices of intention to defend is nothing
more than
an attempt to buy time to the detriment of the victims of motor
vehicle collisions.
[5]
Experience has shown that the present conduct of the appellant
results in matters being postponed far in the future, in the
Pretoria
High Court as far as four years in the future. This seriously impact
on the individual victims to have their matters postponed
far into
the future, in some instances to 2029.
[6]
Considering the endless delays caused by the conduct of the Appellant
in finalising matters of kind, a uniform interpretation
of Rule 19(5)
will result in judicial certainty in this regard.
[7]
I am therefore of the view that there is compelling reason why the
appeal should be heard by the SCA. Leave to appeal to the
SCA is
granted, costs reserved.
Signed
at Pretoria on 30 September 2024.
HOLLAND-MUTER
J
Judge
of the Pretoria High Court
Date
heard: 27 September 2024
Judgment
delivered on 30 September 2024
APPEARANCES:
On
behalf of the Appellant:
Adv
J Magodi
M
Potelo
mmabathop@raf.co.za
State
Attorney, Pretoria
On
behalf of the Respondent:
Adv P
J Vermeulen SC
litigation@venterhagerman.co.za
Hagerman
Attorneys