About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPPHC 398
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Mahlambi v Road Accident Fund (Leave to Appeal) (48015/2021) [2026] ZAGPPHC 398 (9 April 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE
NO: 48015/2021
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
(3)
REVISED.
DATE:
09/04/2026
SIGNATURE:
In
the matter between:
ERNEST
MAHLAMBI
Applicant
And
ROAD
ACCIDENT FUND
Respondent
Delivered:
This matter was heard in open court and the judgment was prepared and
authored by the judge whose name is reflected herein
and
is handed
down electronically by circulation to the parties through their legal
representatives' email addresses. The date for the
hand-down is
deemed to be the 9
th
April 2026
LEAVE
TO APPEAL: JUDGEMENT
LEDWABA
AJ
[1]
On unopposed basis, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against what
it calls "
costs judgement and the orders
" dated 28
October 2025 granted in the presence of the applicant's legal
representative.
[2]
The leave to appeal notice came to my attention by way of an email
from Ms Tryphina Sekete dated
the 28
th
January 2026.
[3]
The parties were directed to deliver their heads of argument by the
6
th
March 2026. Both parties did not file the heads of
arguments as at the directed date.
[4]
The appeal notice is dated the 8
th
December 2025 and was
served at the State Attorney's office on the 11 December 2025.
[5]
In terms of Rule 49(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules and subject to the
good cause case shown, an application
for leave to appeal must be
made within fifteen days after the date of the order appealed
against, or within fifteen days of the
giving of the reasons for
judgment.
[6]
By way of the letter dated the 13
th
November 2025, the
applicant requested the reasons for judgment. They were given on the
21
st
November 2025. The leave to appeal application was
made within the prescribed period.
[7]
The respondent conceded the merits and was ordered to pay one hundred
percent of the applicant's
proven or agreed damages. General damages
were postponed
sine die
, The respondent was further directed
to undertake to pay costs for future damages.
[8]
The basis of the leave to appeal is stated as being that the judgment
erred in deleting paragraphs
5.1 to 5.6 of the draft order presented
on behalf of the applicant. The leave to appeal application submits
that the judgment should
have found that the applicant is entitled to
the specific costs which were allegedly necessary in the
quantification of the matter.
The applicant submits that the deletion
of the items placed the burden of costs on the applicant who was not
responsible for the
collision.
[9]
Paragraphs 5.1 and 5.4 are expressly stated to be subject to the
discretion of the Taxing Master.
[10]
Paragraph 5.1 is stated as being the reasonable taxed fees for
consultation with the experts who are
not mentioned in the presented
draft order. The fact that the experts were not mentioned in the
presented draft order was pointed
out to the applicant's legal
representative during submission and in the reasons for judgment. The
reports included the medical
and related costs, which medical experts
are only listed in the Bill of Costs attached to the taxation notice
dated the 21
st
November 2025 (the Bill of Costs), which is
a date after the leave to appeal notice.
[11]
Paragraphs 5.2 and 5,3 are stated as including transportation and
accommodation costs, including for
the medical examinations and court
related attendances.
[12]
Paragraph 5.4 is stated as including attorney's travelling costs and
pre-trial conference.
[13]
Paragraph 5.5 incudes preparation of applicant's bundles of documents
and traveling costs to deliver
them.
[14]
Paragraph 5.6 was partly granted. It related to the applicant's
counsel's fees with specific items
being deleted.
[15]
Even before the leave to appeal has been finalized, the applicant
submitted for taxation the Bill of
Costs. This Bill of Costs includes
items the applicant claims need to be considered by the Taxing Master
for taxation. This is
an admission by the applicant that those items
are still subject to the discretion of the Taxing Master and that in
the event of
one party being aggrieved by the Taxing Master's
decision, the aggrieved party would have the Rule 48 of the Uniform
Rules review
option process by this court.
[16]
In paragraph 9.2 of the founding affidavit, the applicant says:
"
Should the Taxing master refuse to include the costs in the
court order, the said costs would have to come out of the pockets of
the Applicant
"
[17]
This indicates that on behalf of the applicant, there is
acknowledgement that the "
costs judgement and the orders
"
are to be considered by the Taxing Master.
[18]
While the draft order should deal with the principle of payment, Rule
48(1) read with Rule 70(1) of
the Uniform Rules expressly provide
that the Taxing Master is the compertent authority to tax a bill of
costs and make the ruling
in relation to any item or part of an item
in the presented bill of cost.
[19]
The decision of a Taxing Master with regard to the disputed bill is
the exercise of public power.
[1]
This is subject to review by the court in terms of Rule 48 (7) of the
Uniform Rules.
[20]
It is an abuse of the court process to appeal against disallowed item
in the draft order while a party
is aware that such item can still be
submitted for taxation by the Taxing Master.
[21]
The leave to appeal application fails on the basis of this abuse
court process. In the event of it
being wrong to conclude that the
leave to application fails on the basis of court process abuse, the
applicationn is further considered
on the basis stated in the
following paragraphs.
[22]
The next question is whether what was granted on the 28
th
October 2025 constitutes a decision of the High Court within the
meaning of section 16(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
(the Act).
[23]
Appealability has to do with whether this court has jurisdiction to
hear an appeal.
[2]
The
jurisdictional requirements for a civil appeal from the High Court
sitting as a court of first instance are that there must
be a
decision of the High Court within the meaing of section 16(1)(a) of
the Act and that the required leave to appeal must be
granted under
section 17(2) of the Act either by the High Court or the Supreme
Court of Appeal.
[3]
The
decision appealed against must be a "judgment or order" and
the necessary leave to appeal must have been granted.
[4]
[24]
In terms of section 165(5) of the Constitution, an order or decision
issued by a court binds all persons
to whom and the organ of state to
which it applies.
[25]
The legal principle is that for an order or judgment to be
appealable, it must be final or definitive
of the rights of the
parties to the matter .
[5]
An
appealable order, judgment or decision is one which is final in
effect and not susceptible to reconsideration by the court that
granted it, is definitive of the rights of the parties, and has the
effect of disposing of at least a substantial portion of the
relief
claimed in the main proceedings.
[6]
[26]
As a general principle, an order is a decision which has three
attributes: it must be final in effect
and not susceptible of
alteration by the court of first instance, it must be definitive of
the rights of the parties and must have
the effect of disposing of
the relief claimed in the main proceedings.
[7]
[27]
The judgment must have final effect.
[8]
[28]
There is no difference in the meaning assigned to the phrase
"judgment or order" in section
20 of the Supreme Court Act
and a "decision" in section 16(1)(a) of the Act.
[9]
[29]
Generally a ruling does not constitute a 'decision' unless it has
three attributes: it must be final
in effect; it must be definitive
of the rights of the parties; and it must have the effect of
disposing of at least a substantial
part of the relief claimed.
[10]
[30]
By way of interpretation, rulings are not appealable decisions.
[11]
What results from the presented draft order, especially the one
presented as subject to the Taxing Master's discretion, is more
of a
ruling which has no attributes of a judgment referred to in section
165(5) of the Constitution. It does not qualify to be
subjected to
the appeal process.
[31]
The appeal notice submits that it is in the interest of justice that
the appeal is allowed as contemplated
in section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii)
of the Act
[32]
The founding affidavit deposed to support the application rightly
points out that the test for leave
to appeal is set out in section
17(1) of the Act.
[33]
Section 17(1)(a) of the Act allows the hearing court to grant leave
to appeal where the judge concerned
is of the opinion that an appeal
would have a reasonable prospects of success or there are compelling
reasons which exist why an
appeal should be heard, such as the
interest of justice. If the court is unpersuaded that there are
reasonable prospects of success,
it must still enquire into whether
there are compelling reasons to entertain an appeal. If the
reasonable prospect of success is
established, leave to appeal should
be granted. Similarly, if there are some other compelling reasons why
the appeal should be
heard, leave to appeal should be granted
[12]
.
[34]
The applicant has not made out a case that persuades that another
court would reach to a different
conclusion. It is still not
convincing that the applicant has made out a case for the granting of
leave to appeal.
[35]
The application is not opposed to justify any costs order.
Order
[36]
The application for leave to appeal is declined.
[37]
There is no order as to costs.
LEDWABA
LGP
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
NORTH
GAUTENG DIVISION PRETORIA.
APPEARANCES
Heard
on:
28 October 2025
Heads
of arguments due by : 6 March
2026
Judgement
delivered on:
9 April 2026
Applicant's
legal represenative: Mahlangu PM Attorneys
520 Spuy Street
Sunnyside
PRETORIA
Respondent's
legal represenative: Unrepresented.
[1]
Coetzee v Taxing Master, South Gauteng High Court & Another
(2012) ZAGPJHC 175; 2013(1) SA 749GSJ-par 8)
[2]
GRDGOLD Limited & Another v Nkala & Others (2023) ZASCA
9-par 13
[3]
GRDGOLD Limited & Another v Nkala & Others (2023) ZASCA
9-par 17
[4]
Zweni v Minister of Law and Order
(1992) ZASCA 197
;
(1993) 1 All SA
365(A)
; 1993(1) SA 523- par 5
[5]
Unica Iron and Steel (Pty)Ltd & Another v The Minister of Trade
and Industry & Another
(2023) ZASCA 42-
par 11; Competition
Commission of South Africa v Standard Bank of South Africa 2020(4)
BCLR (CC) par 46-47
[6]
Zweni v Minister of Law and Order
(1992) ZASCA 197
;
(1993) 1 All SA
365(A)
; 1993(1)SA 523(A) at-par 5368)
[7]
Arcus v Arcus
(2022) ZASCA 9
; (2022)AII SA 626(SCA) 2022(3) SA
149(SCA)( 21/01/22)-par 15: TWK Agricultural Holdings (Pty)Ltd v
Hoogveld Boerderybeleggings(Pty)
Ltd & Others
(2023) ZASCA 63
;
2023(5) SA 163(SCA)-par 21 ; Koop NO & Others v National
Director of Public Prosecutions
(2023) ZASCA 141
: par 22; Cilliers
NO & others v Ellis & Another (
2017) ZASCA 13(SCA)
; Secona
Freight Logistics CC v Samie & Others
(2023) ZASCA 183-
par 19
and cited cases .
[8]
International Trade Administration Commission v SCAW South Africa
(Pty) Ltd
(2010) ZACC 6
; 2012(4) SA 618( CC); 2010(5) BCLR
457(CC)-par 49
[9]
Neotel (Pty) Ltd v Telkom SA Soc Ltd & others
(2017) ZASCA
47-par
12; Sv Van Wyk
(2014) ZASCA 152
; 2015(1) SACR 584(SCA) at
591; Firstrand Bank Limited t/a First National Bank v Makaleng
(2016) ZASCA 169)
par10-15
[10]
Cipla Agrimed (Pty) Ltd v Mere sharp Dohme Corporation & others
(2017) ZASCA 134
; 2018(6) SA 440 - par 18;
[11]
Zweni v Minister of Law and Order
(1992) ZASCA 197
;
(1993) 1 All SA
365(A)
; 1993(1) SA- par 9(2)
[12]
Ramakatsa & Others v African National Congress & Another
(2021) ZASCA 31-par
10