REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number:2024/052535
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:YES
(3) REVISED: YES
———
Sis) f SIGN 7
In the matter between-
Bangiwe Phikisile SITHOLE Plaintiff
And
Road Accident Fund Defendant
Summary: Rule 18(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court requires all pleadings to be
signed by both an attorney and an advocate. Section 19 of the Road
Accident Fund Act stipulates that a claim may only be instituted and
prosecuted by an attorney and certain state employees. Advocates with
trust accounts cannot sign pleadings on their own nor may they institute
and prosecute Road Accident Fund claims.
JUDGMENT
2
[1] This matter was set down on the RAF defauit judgment roll for the 5" August
2025. Whilst preparing for the hearing of the matter it became clear that both
the summons and particulars of claim were signed by adv N Sikhakhane (with
a Trust Account) and that the proposed draft order that had been uploaded onto
CaseLines contained the following: “The aforesaid sum shall be paid directly
into the Trust Account of Applicant's Advocate (with Trust Account) of record
ADVOCATE NDLOVUKAZI SIKHAKHANE, details of which are as follows: ...”
[2] | caused a note to be uploaded onto CaseLines and which read as follows:
“This matter may not be removed from the roll. Counsel to
prepare written Heads of Argument why, in light of the decision
in Segole v Road Accident Fund (16923/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC
(Segole) the claim should not be dismissed and adv Sikhakhane
be referred to the LPC.”
[3] |The Segole judgment is a judgment of the Honourable Millar, J and which was
handed down on the 21% July 20285.
[4] At the time of uploading the CaseLines note there was no indication who would
be appearing for the plaintiff at the hearing of the matter.
[5] Adv Sikhakhane appeared for the plaintiff when the matter was called on
Tuesday 5" August 2025 and after addressing the court on her “displeasure” at
the tone and wording of the CaseLines note, made some submissions to the
court which may be summarised as follows:
She declined to adhere to the court’s directive to prepare written Heads of
Argument because:
a) by asking her to prepare and submit Heads of Argument the court had
prejudged the matter and was biased;
b) She was in possession of a letter from the Legal Practice Council (LPC)
permitting her to accept instructions from the public to prosecute Road
3
Accident Fund (RAF) claims. Adv Sikhakhane attempted to hand up the
letter from the Bar but | declined to accept it as it is not proper to proffer
evidence from the Bar.
(6] | advised her that the issues were serious and the matter could not properly be
ventilated without giving her an opportunity to make considered written
submissions to the query raised in the CaseLines note. Adv Sikhakhane’s
attitude remained that she declined to make any written submissions as this
court had prejudged the matter and she had a letter from the LPC. No point
would have been served to debate the matter any further and the next matter
was called.
[7] Adv Sikhakhane appears to have had a change of heart and on 6 August 2025
at 15:47 her written Heads of Argument was uploaded to CaseLines. The
essence of the argument contained in these Heads of Argument is that; to the
extent that Adv Sikhakhane had sought and obtained a letter from the LPC
entitling her, as an advocate with a trust account to represent RAF claimants
and lodge claims on their behalf, she had done nothing wrong.
(8] In addition to the above the Heads of Argument makes out an argument that it
was the intention of the Legal Practice Act that all practitioners should be equal
and that, as such, she was entitled to do the work of an attorney.
[9] | The argument concludes with a submission that the Uniform Rules of Court are
only Rules, which are trumped by the Legal Practice Act.
[10] The crux of the Segole judgment appears from the following extracts thereof:
“[8] Firstly, section 19 of the RAF Act provides that liability on the
part of the respondent is excluded in certain cases. Section 19(c)
and (d) provide that the respondent is not liable:
“(c) if the claim concerned has not been instituted and prosecuted by
the third party, or on behalf of the third party by-