Reportable: YES / NO
Circulate to Judges: YES / NO
Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO
Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY)
Case no: 1962/2012
In the matter between:
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND APPLICANT
and
MAGDALENA KARSTEN FIRST RESPONDENT
WILLOW-JEAN BERNADETTE KARSTEN SECOND RESPONDENT
POSTNET SOUTHERN AFRICA (PTY) LTD THIRD RESPONDENT
THE SOUTH AFRICAN POST OFFICE SOC LTD FOURTH RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: | Road Accident Fund v Karsten and Others (Case no
1962/2012).
Coram: Tyuthuza AJ
Heard: 29 January 2025.
Delivered: 15 August 2025.
2
Summary: Leave to appeal — Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, section 17(1)(a)(i)
and (ii) — Higher threshold — Appeal must have reasonable prospect of success or
compelling reason to be heard — Neither established — Application dismissed with
costs.
ORDER
1. The application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order granted
on 22 March 2024 is dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
Tyuthuza AJ
INTRODUCTION
[1] The applicant, the Road Accident Fund, seeks leave to appeal the whole of
the judgment and order, including the order as to costs granted by myself
on 22 March 2024 to the Full Court of this Division or, alternatively, the
Supreme Court of Appeal.
[2] The first defendant in the action (‘Road Accident Fund’) is the applicant in
this application for leave to appeal, and the first and second plaintiffs are
the first and second respondents herein and have opposed the application.
For ease of reference, | shall refer to the first and second respondents
collectively as just respondents in this judgment. The third and fourth
respondents, which are the second and third defendants in the action, do
not oppose this application. .
3
[3] | have considered the grounds upon which leave to appeal is sought and
the parties’ respective written submissions. | note that the applicant does
not seek leave to appeal the judgment and order insofar as it relates to the
third defendant (‘The South African Post Office SOC Ltd’), wherein |
suspended the proceedings as against the third defendant pending the
finalisation of the business rescue proceedings against it and further
ordered the first and second plaintiffs to pay the third defendant's costs for
25 January 2024. The leave to appeal application is therefore limited to the
judgment and order relating to the special plea of prescription raised by the
applicant.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
[4] The test to be applied in an application for leave to appeal is set out in
section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, which provides that:
“Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of
the opinion that-
(i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard,
including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration,”
[5] This application is premised on the ground that the appeal has a reasonable
prospect of success.
[6] It is trite that the test or threshold for leave to appeal is higher and more
stringent now, and an applicant must show that they have a reasonable
prospect of success in the appeal.’ In Chithi and Others; In re: Luhlwini
1 See S v Van Wyk and Another [2014] ZASCA 152; [2014] 4 All SA 708 (SCA); 2015 (1) SACR
584 (SCA) para 14; see also Notshokovu v S (157/15) [2016] ZASCA 112 (7 September 2016)
para 2.