IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case No: 66649/16
(1) REPORTABLE: No
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No
(3) REVISED
2 June 2025
WRIGHT J
In the matter between:
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Applicant
and
BRANDON LYLE LONGMANS Respondent
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
1. On 15 August 2015, Mr Longmans was injured in a motor vehicle accident.
Summons was issued against the Fund , claiming damages. On 8 June 2018,
the Fund agreed to be liable for 80% of Mr Longmans’ damages. Some time
prior to 2 August 2024, the parties had settled their differences on all heads of
damages save for loss of earnings.
2. The matter was set down for trial on 2 August 2024 on the question of loss of
earnings .
3. Numerous expert reports by doctors and an actuary were filed on behalf of Mr
Longmans . These reports be come evidence , according to modern practice,
when affidavits by the experts confirming the correctness of the ir reports are
filed and the affidavits , read together with the reports are allowed into
evidence by the court under Rule 38(2) .
4. There is on file an actuarial addendum report dated 17 May 2024, in which it
is calculated that the correct figure for loss of earnings, after the deduction of
the agreed 20% apportionment against Mr Longmans , is R 6 052 365. The
actuary, Mr Pretorius confirmed the correctness of the report in an affidavit
filed on record.
5. On 2 August 2024 , there was appearance for Mr Longmans but none for the
Fund. The matter was allocated to Kubushi J. Counsel for Mr Longmans
sought and obtained an order in terms of a draft order prepared by him in
which R6 052 365 was sought.
6. The Fund now seeks to rescind the order of 2 August 2024 . It relies only on
Rule 42 (1)(a), it being alleged that the order was erroneously sought and
granted.
7. The Fund does not suggest that it was unaware of the set down for 2 August
2024 . Nor does it suggest that it tried to send a legal practitioner to the
hearing. The answering affidavit makes it clear that the Fund was well aware
of the court date but chose not to attend.
8. The Fund raises one point. It says that the order was erroneously sought and
granted because some years earlier , Dr Liebenberg , an orthopaedic surgeon
retained by Mr Longmans had submitted a report in which he recommended
that Mr Longmans be re assessed later to see if a tibia -fibula non-union had
healed or not. The re -assessment had not taken place by 2 August 2024 .
9. At 12:29 pm on 2 August 2024, a person employed by the Fund emailed the
attorneys for Mr Longmans stating that Mr Longmans had not been
reassessed despite having been called for reassessment. At 1pm on the
same day, the attorneys for Mr Longmans replied, stating that the court had
already granted the order.
10. On 13 August 2024, the attorneys for the Fund requested reasons from
Kubush i J for her order. The se were supplied on 6 September 2024.
11. The present application is dated 10 October 2024 . It includes a prayer for
condonation of the non-compliance by the Fund with time periods. Rule
42(1)((a) does not specify a time within which an application should be
brought. The Fund explains that it spent some time attempting to settle the
matter before launching the application. In my view, the application was
brought within a reasonable time and falls to be dealt with on its merits.
12. In my view, the application for rescission is unsound. The Fund chose not to
oppose the order sought. It cannot now attempt an appeal by labelling it a
rescission. There was no error in seeking the order or in granting it. The Fund
could have timeously taken steps to have Mr Longmans reassessed. It did
not.
13. The ground for rescission now raised has nothing to do with procedure. It is
an attack on the merits of the evidence. This ground of attack is not applicable
in a rescission application.
14. It is not at all clear that the email sent by the Fund at 12:29pm on the day of
the order was received by Mr Longmans’ legal practitioners before they
sought the order. Even if it was, there was no obligation on them not to
proceed.
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed with costs on scale B.
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD : 2 June 2025
DELIVERED : 2 June 2025
APPEARANCES :
Applicant Att LT Makhura
Instructed by State Attorney
Mr LT Makhura
lehlogonolom@raf.co.za
Ramadimestsam@raf.co.za
Respondent Adv MP Fourie
mfourie@gkchambers.co.za
Instructed by Scott Els Attorneys Inc
scott@selegal.co.za