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 571
|
|
Munyaradzi v Road Accident Fund (31742/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 571 (10 June 2025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO
: 31742/2019
DATE
:
2025-06-03
(1)
REPORTABLE: YES / NO.
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO.
(3)
REVISED.
In
the matter between
KAMBANJE
MUNYARADZI
Applicant
and
ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND
Respondent
JUDGMENT
YACOOB,
J
:This matter was allocated to me
for trial for today being set down for two to three days. A practice
note was filed indicating
that the matter was ready for trial.
Thereupon it was allocated to me for hearing.
On
counsel appearing, I was informed that counsel for the plaintiff was
only briefed in order to remove the matter, that even though
his name
appears on the practice note, it was inserted by attorney and that
counsel was, in fact, on trial in another matter today
in this court.
He
further indicated that the reason for the removal is that certain
documents are still outstanding. The defendant’s counsel,
Ms
Mhlongo confirmed that on the defendant's side they were also looking
for some documents and that, in fact, there was supposed
to be a
removal by agreement with no order as to costs.
However, in these
circumstances where the matter was not ready for trial, and the
attorney caused a practice note to be filed, indicating
that the
matter was ready for trial, and causing an allocation, in
circumstances where it is well-known to the public that the
Court’s
roll is overrun and that people awaiting for court dates to 2031, it
is unacceptable that the matter was allowed
to remain on the roll
when it was not ready.
For
these reasons I consider it appropriate to reserve costs of the
postponement to be determined by the trial court, and to require
that
the attorney for the plaintiff file an affidavit, explaining his
conduct and providing reasons why he should not be ordered
to pay the
costs for today
de bonis propriis
.
I make the following order:
1.
The matter is removed from the roll.
2.
Costs are reserved to be determined by the
trial court.
3.
The plaintiff’s attorney is to file
an affidavit explaining his conduct and providing reasons to the
trial court why they
should not be ordered to pay the costs of the
postponement
de bonis propriis
.
YACOOB, J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE
:
……………….