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
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPJHC 10
|
|
Twala v Road Accident Fund (19/43859) [2026] ZAGPJHC 10 (9 January 2026)
THE
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO
: 19/43859
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED
In
the matter between:
SIYABONGA
TWALA
Plaintiff
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT
FUND
Defendant
JUDGMENT
BHOOLA
AJ,
Introduction
[1]
This is an application for default judgment, where the plaintiff, Mr
Siyabonga Twala, institutes action against the Road
Accident Fund
(“the RAF”) seeking damages arising from a motor vehicle
collision that allegedly occurred on 27 December
2017, along
Klerksdorp, Potchefstroom Road.
[2]
The merits and general damages have been settled. The plaintiff’s
claim rests only on quantum. The plaintiff
bears the onus of
proving the negligence of the insured driver on a balance of
probabilities.
Factual
background
[3]
The summons was issued and served on the defendant, who filed a
notice of intention to defend the matter. The defendant
delivered a
plea but failed to respond to the plaintiff’s request to attend
a pre- trial conference in terms of Rule 37 of
the Uniform Rules.
[4]
On 25 October 2023 an order was granted directing the plaintiff to
convene and comply with a pre- trial conference in
terms of Rule 37
within seven (7) days of service of that order. The said
order was served on 30 January 2024.
[5]
On 1 August 2024, an order was granted striking out the defendant’s
defence.
[6]
A practice note was uploaded on 15 July 2024, predating the striking
out of the defence.
[7]
On 10 April 2025, there was a substitution of attorneys for the
plaintiff.
[8]
The application for default judgment was previously set down for
hearing on 25 February 2025 and 5 May 2025. On each of
these
occasions the dates were allocated in accordance with the Practice
Directive 1 of 2024 as amended and the notice of set down
was served
on the defendant.
[9]
With regard to the matter placed before me, no notice of set down has
been filed. No joint or unilateral practice note
has been uploaded.
The matter has accordingly not been enrolled on the default trial
roll.
Legal
Principles
[10]
Practice Directive 1 of 2024, as amended in June 2024, regulates the
enrolment, case management and hearing of civil
trials, including
Road Accident Fund matters in this Division. The following directives
are applicable in this case:
10.1
Paragraph 19.3 regulates the requirements of practice notes which are
peremptory.
10.2
Paragraph 19.4 deals with final enrolment and provides that compliant
practice notes must be filed within
the prescribed time periods
before it may be heard.
10.3
Paragraph 22 provides that RAF matters enrolled for default judgment
is not except from paragraph 19.
Evaluation
[11]
The striking out of a defence does not, entitle a plaintiff to an
immediate determination of quantum. Even where a defendant
is in
default, the plaintiff remains obliged to properly enrol the matter
for hearing and to prove damages, unless relieved of
that obligation
by law or a court order.
[12]
In the absence of a notice of set-down and a practice-note, the
matter is not properly before court for the adjudication
of quantum.
In such circumstances, the court is obliged to case manage the matter
and issue procedural directives aimed at ensuring
compliance with the
Rules of Court and the Practice Directives.
[13]
It would be inconsistent with the Practice Directive 1 of 2024 (as
amended) and with the orderly administration of justice
for this
court to entertain or determine the issue of quantum where the matter
has not been properly enrolled, and the mandatory
practice note
documentation has not been filed.
[14]
The appropriate course in this matter under the circumstances is
accordingly not to determine quantum, but to issue directions
to
enable the regularisation of the matter.
[15]
The matter is accordingly not ripe for adjudication. To entertain it
in its present form would condone irregular procedure
and undermine
directive based case management.
Order
[16]
In the result, the following order is made:
16.1
the matter is not ripe for the adjudication of quantum and cannot be
considered as such in the absence of
a proper set- down and a
compliant practice note.
16.2
The plaintiff is directed to take steps to properly enrol the matter,
on the default judgment trial roll,
as may be appropriate, in
accordance with Practice Directive 1 of 2024 (as amended) and the
Uniform Rules of Court.
16.3
The plaintiff shall comply with all applicable pre-trial, case
management and practice note requirements
prior to enrolment.
16.4
The matter is removed from the default judgment trial roll.
16.5
There is no order as to costs.
CB. BHOOLA
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Delivered:
This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected on
09 January
2026
and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their
legal representatives by e mail and by uploading it to
the electronic
file of this matter on CaseLines. The date for hand-down is
deemed to be
09
January 2026.
APPEARANCES
Date
of hearing: 22 October 2025
Date
of judgment: 09 January 2026
For
the plaintiff: Adv.
N
Makopo
(Tel:
083 258 0435 / E-mail:
nmakopo33@gmail.com
)
Instructed
by: Phefadu Attorneys
(
info@cpphefaduinc.co.za
)
For
the Defendant: RAF State Attorney:
P
Makhathini
(Tel:
072 452 7012)