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
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPJHC 184
|
|
Rukanda v Road Accident Fund (015520/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 184 (4 February 2025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO
: 015520/2022
DATE
:
04-02-2025
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES / NO.
(2)
OF INTEREST TO
OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO.
(3)
REVISED.
In the matter between
PT
RUKANDA
Plaintiff
and
THE ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND
Defendant
JUDGMENT
WEIDEMAN,
AJ
:
- - - - - - - - - - - -
This is matter number 42 on this
week’s roll, case number 015520 of 2022, the matter of PT
Rukanda and the Road Accident Fund.
In this matter counsel proceeded
with two applications, the first being an application in terms of
Rule 38(2) to enable evidence
to be presented on affidavit and a
further application in terms of Rule 33(4) to separate the aspects of
liability and quantum,
allowing the matter to proceed in respect of
liability only.
When counsel called the matter, the
Court indicated that, irrespective of the conduct and actions or lack
thereof on behalf of the
defendant, the plaintiff’s negligence
in colliding with a vehicle from behind is inferred in terms of the
doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur,
requiring an explanation from
the plaintiff about what occurred. After debating the matter for a
short while it was agreed that
the Court’s concerns would be
best addressed if the plaintiff testified.
Following the plaintiff’s
evidence the Court found no reason to doubt his honesty or
earnestness.
The plaintiff testified that the
accident occurred on the 19
th
of December 2019 at
approximately 19:00pm. He indicated that it occurred not long after a
rain shower and that the road was wet.
Despite it being December, he
indicated that it was already turning dark. He was on the M2 West
travelling the direction of the
N1.
An easy test of the memory of the
plaintiff is to compare the date and time of the accident as per the
OAR with the time given by
him in his oral evidence. According to the
OAR the accident occurred at 18:50, and that OAR was completed a day
after the accident.
The other aspect which does not appear
from either of the affidavits which the plaintiff attested to or from
the OAR, was that the
plaintiff was not travelling in an ordinary
sedan motor vehicle and which would be easy to manoeuvre even after
braking sharply,
but that he was in fact driving a 6 cubic metre
tipper truck, which is a significantly more difficult vehicle to
manoeuvre.
Given the plaintiff’s
description of the events immediately preceding the accident and the
actions taken by him, including
having the foresight to wait for a
vehicle in the left-hand lane to pass before attempting to move out,
it appears that he acted
reasonably in the circumstances. I am
satisfied that the plaintiff should be entitled to 100% of such
damages as he may be able
to substantiate in due course.
After having heard counsel for the
plaintiff and having considered the evidence / documents presented
the Court orders that:
1
The plaintiff may produce evidence in terms
of Rule 18(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
2
Merits and quantum is hereby separated in
terms of Rule 33(4) if the Uniform Rules of Court.
3
The defendant is ordered to pay 100 percent
of the plaintiff’s proven or agreed damages.
4
The defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s
taxed or agreed party and party costs on the high court scale,
including but not limited
to the default trial costs of the 4
th
of February 2025, subject to the discretion of the taxing master.
WEIDEMAN, AJ
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE
:
……………….