REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRIC.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:NO
(3) REVISED: NO lacus
4 VA
DATE: le) ws “SR
In the matters between:
ase Number: 2021/39064
Daisy Shabalala Applicant
And
Road Accident Fund Respondent
And
ase Number: 2021/58021
Matjankgowa Rolty Sefadi Applicant
and
Road Accident Fund Respondent
JUDGMENT
Weideman AJ
z
[1] Both these matters came before court on the safhe legal question and it is
therefore appropriate to address the matters together. The matter of Shabalala
was on the Road Accident Fund Default Judgmenf Court roll during the week
of the 8!" °f October 2024 and the matter of Sefadi during the week of the 29"
October 2024.
[2] Two court orders were given in each matter before ifjwas enrolled on the Default
judgment court roll.
in the matter of Shabalala these were:
[3] Anorder by the Honourable Mayet AJ, handed dowa on the 31/11/2023. At that
stage and in accordance with this order all issue between the parties were
finalised but for the Plaintiff's claim, if any, for gen¢ral damages. The claim for
general damages was postponed sine die. The reason was simple — as at the
date of the hearing of the matter the Road Accident Fund (hereafter the RAF)
had not yet applied its administrative mind to the question of the seriousness of
the plaintiff's injuries and thus no decision had beefl made.
[4] An order by the Honourable Steyn AJ, handed down on the 3rd May 2024. In
accordance with this order the RAF was compelled to apply its administrative
mind to the matter and to take a decision on whetiler it accepts or rejects the
plaintiffs claim that the injuries sustained in tHe accident were serious.
According to the order the defendant had 10 days fo make up its mind and to
render a decision. Should it not do so the defendanfijwould be ipso facto barred
and the plaintiff may apply to the registrar to have the matter referred to the
Default Judgment court for adjudication on the issue of general damages. The
implication is that the RAF’s failure to adhere to the jprder would have the effect
that the injuries are deemed to be serious, henc@j the referral to the default
judmgnet court for finalization.
In the matter of Sefadi these were:
[5] An order by the Honourable De Wet AJ, handed ddwn on the 8th March 2024.
All heads of damage settled and finalised, but for théjclaim for general damages
and which was postponed sine die.
3
[6] An order by the Honourable Wijnbeek AJ, handed gown on 17 April 2024. The
wording is an exact copy of the wording of the ordelj handed down by Steyn AJ
in the Shabalala matter. The same legal team appeared for the Plaintiffs in both
matters.
Counsel's submissions:
[7] In presenting his clients’ cases, counsel for the plaintiffs argued along the
following lines. According to the SCA decision in Mpahla v RAF (698/16) [2017]
ZASCA 76 the RAF’s failure to take a decision within the time periods
prescribed by the Road Accident Fund Act and Regulations issued pursuant
thereto, does not create a deeming provision. The plaintiff's answer lies therein
that it has the opportunity after the expiry of the 9@-day period provided for in
the Regulations to apply for a mandamus in terms Of PAJA to compel the RAF
to make a decision.
[8] The argument then continues, in both these matt@rs the plaintiff, as per the
SCA’s ruling, did apply for a mandamus and it wag given. This would be the
orders handed down by Justices Steyn AJ and Wijhbeek AJ. Just as the RAF
had failed to act in accordance with its obligations iff terms of the RAF Act and
Regulations it is now also in contempt of the PAJA gompelling orders.
[9] Given the RAF’s complete disdain for its obligationsjin terms of the Regulations
and the subsequent PAJA mandamus orders, not af all being concerned about
being in contempt of the court orders, the question tien arises, what more could
the plaintiffs do, to enable the aspect of general damages to be finalised and
for them to move on with their lives? The capital thal they received for the other
heads of damage was being eroded by legal costs if pursuing application after
application simply to get the RAF to take a decision,|which it is clearly either not
capable of making or care so little for the effects of their actions, that they refuse
to adhere to court orders and do what they are by I@gislation obliged to do, i.e.
evaluate and settle claims.