About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZANCHC 58
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Seedat and Others v Road Accident Fund and Others (19 June 2026) (2913/2024) [2026] ZANCHC 58 (19 June 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTHERN CAPE
DIVISION, KIMBERLEY)
Case
No:
2913/2024
Reportable:
YES/NO
Circulate
to Judges: YES/NO
Circulate
to Regional Magistrates: YES/NO
Circulate
to Magistrates: YES/NO
In the matter between:
MUHAMMAD
SEEDAT
First Applicant
ADV MARILIZE ROLLER
N.O.
(
obo MODISSAGAANEKWE
ADAM MOSEKI)
Second Applicant
ALETTA
SIBINA SAUER
Third Applicant
LEBOGANG
ONTEHETSE VERONICA GAAREKWE
Fourth Applicant
LEANDI NEETHLING N.O.
(obo
CHRIZELDA MERCIA VAN
NIEKERK
)
Fifth Applicant
HUGO
EUGENE STRUMPHER
Sixth Applicant
SUSANNA
CATHARINA NORTJE
Seventh Applicant
ERASMUS
ALBERTUS SCHUTTE
Eighth Applicant
MAUD
ELLEN PRETORIUS
Ninth Applicant
SYBRANSD
ABRAHAM DE BEER
Tenth Applicant
LIOTT
MARIS ATTORNEYS
Eleventh Applicant
and
THE
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
First Respondent
VINCENT
LEKOLWANA
Second Respondent
THE
MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
Third Respondent
Neutral
citation:
M Seedat & 10 Others v
The Road Accident Fund & 2 Others
(Case
No: 2913/2024)
Coram:
Coetzee AJ
Date
of Judgment:
19 June 2026
Summary:
Applicants move for an order for a declaration of unlawfulness of
the first and second respondents’ “
blocking”
and/or intentionally delaying payment of capital, costs and/or
interest in terms of court orders and/or due court
process in respect
of costs (namely allocators by taxing masters), to the first to
seventh and ninth to tenth applicants as clients
of the eleventh
applicant ostensibly for payment of an outstanding amount due to the
first respondent by another client of the
eleventh applicant, or for
any other undisclosed reason
JUDGMENT
THE PARTIES
First to tenth applicants
are all claimants in third party actions instituted on their behalf
by the eleventh applicant, a firm
of attorneys, which firm also acted
in a similar action on behalf a certain Me A Ford.
The
First Respondent is the
Road
Accident Fund
established
by the Road Accident Fund Act
[1]
,
a statutory body that compensates persons who suffer bodily injury,
or the dependants of persons who die, as a result of the negligent
driving of motor vehicles in South Africa. The Act replaced earlier
compensation schemes and created a single national fund.
INTRODUCTION
:
[1]
On 3 December 2024 the applicants, brought a semi-urgent application,
claiming the relief set out in part A of the notice of motion.
[2]
This semi-urgent application was heard by Stanton J who struck the
matter from the roll for lack of urgency and ordered the applicants
to pay the respondents’ costs jointly and severally.
[3]
The applicants filed an amended notice of motion on the 20
th
of June 2025 supported by s supporting affidavit by Mr. Van NIekerk.
This amended notice of motion was heard by Lever J who, by
agreement
between the parties, postponed the matter to 13 March 2026.
[4]
The relevant relief claimed in the amended Notice of Motion, is the
following
Paragraph A
1
That leave be and is granted to the applicants to file and rely on
the supplementary affidavit of Mr Hendrik August van Niekerk;
2
That the first and second respondent’s conduct of “blocking”
and/or intentionally delaying payment of capital,
costs and/or
interest in terms of court orders and/or due court process in respect
of costs (namely allocators by taxing masters),
to the first to
seventh and ninth to tenth applicants as clients of the eleventh
applicant ostensibly for payment of an outstanding
amount due to the
first respondent by another client of the eleventh applicant, or for
any other undisclosed reason, be declared
unlawful (“the
unlawful conduct”)
3
That the first and second respondents be ordered to forthwith
3.1
cease with such unlawful conduct by unblocking or to desist from
delaying payments due to the eleventh applicant
in respect of the
first to seventh and ninth to tenth applicant
3.2
implement steps to make payment of any and all amounts due as
capital, interest and/or costs to the first
to seventh and ninth to
tenth applicants, such payment to be affected forthwith but by no
later than 14 days from date of this
order;
Paragraph B
1
That the unlawful conduct by the second respondent and any and
every other person identified as below, be declared to be mala fide
and not to fall within the remit of the protection afforded to
employees and officials of the first defendant in terms of
section
15(3)
of the
Road Accident Fund Act, no
56
of 1996
;
2
That the second respondent and/or any other person or persons
(“collectively referred to as “the transgressors”)
who may yet be identified and joined in these proceedings, be
declared to be guilty of contempt of court by having wilfully engaged
in the unlawful conduct;
4
Pay the costs of this application (in respect of Part A and Part
B) on a scale as between attorney and own client, jointly and
severally,
the one paying the other to be absolved.
The applicants however
move for an order in terms of prayers 1, 2 and 3 of Part A and payers
1, 2, and 4 of part B of the amended
Notice of Motion.
BACKGROUND
[4
]
It is common cause that, at the institution of the first application,
the following capital amounts plus taxed costs were due and
payable
by the Fist Respondent to the Plaintiffs as listed hereunder:
CASE
NO.
ORDER
AMOUNT
DATE
OF ORDER
298/2011
SEEDAT, M
R 500 000.00
12 Nov. 2019
1433/2012
MA MOSEKI
Taxed Costs
R 594 267.60
R 119 020
11 Dec. 2020
02/2018
SAUER, AS
Taxed Costs
R 5 411 902.20
R1 192 230.84
01 Dec. 2024
1999/2016
ORATILE
GAAREKW
E
Taxed Costs
R4 923 202.00
R1 192 230.84
15 Oct. 2021
1359/2018
VAN NIEKERK C M
R523 956.10
23 Feb. 2021
1896/2021
STRUMPHER, HE
R1 722 154.25
10 May 2023
2050/2016
NORTJE, SC
Taxed Costs
R2 219 742.00
R
624468.38
04 Dec. 2020
378/2009
SCHUTTE, EA
Taxed Costs
R 346 804.00
R780 060.57
08 Mar. 2019
689/2012
PRETORIUS, ME
Taxed Costs
R2 369 422.46
R184 478.82
10 Feb. 2021
1016/2017
DE BEER, SA
Taxed Costs
R1 607 291.39
R1134
727.10
25 Mar. 2019
[5]
Certain amounts has been paid to some of the applicants as set out
hereunder:
5.
1
R 135 564.78 on 5 January 2018;
5.2
R 29 445.91 on 16
March 2018; and
5.3
R 1 407 350.88 on
29 June 2018.
[6]
The first and second respondents filed opposing papers to the
founding affidavit by Mr. van Niekerk, acting on behalf of the
majority
of the applicants and he is the managing partner of the
eleventh applicant.
[7]
In their initial opposing papers to the original application, the
first and second respondent summarized the grounds for opposition
being three points
in limine
7.1)
First point
in Iimine:
that
the present application constitutes an attempt to circumvent the
legitimate and well-regulated process of execution as laid
down in
Rule 45
7.2)
Second point
in limine
that the application lacked urgency.
7.3)
Third point in
limine
that the relief claimed is incoherent.
.
As well as a defence on the merits to which I will refer to
infra
.
[8]
Points In Limine
8.1 The second
point in
limine
became irrelevant as a result of the
application in December 2024
8.2
Rule 45(1) provides as follows:
"A
judgment creditor may, at his or her own risk, sue out of the office
of the registrar one or more writs for execution thereof
corresponding substantially with Form 18 of the First Schedule."
From
the wording of the rule it is clear that the provides the threat to
be issued only in claims sounding in money. In this event
the relief
claimed is of a declaratory nature and thus not sobbing in money and
the point in limine is therefore without substance.
8.3
I can find no inchoateness’ in a relief and therefore this
point is also in my view without substance.
[9]
From the undisputed evidence it is clear that the origin of the
impasse between the parties stems from, what I will refer to as
the
“Ford Matter”
[10]
Ms Amy Ford
(plaintiff in the “Ford Matter”) is also a client of
Elliott Maris, the eleventh applicant. Her action in
her personal and
in her representative capacity on behalf of her children (Tegan,
William and Gordon Riley Ford) was for damages
suffered in which she
claimed compensation for personal injuries and in respect of a loss
of maintenance by all of them (excluding
Tegan Ford).The Ford Matter,
was partially finalised on 30 November 2017 (in respect of the
personal injuries and finalised in
respect of the loss of maintenance
component on 17 September 2020.
[11]
However, a significant amount in unpaid interest, which accrued on
the capital amounts and on unpaid costs, remains due to her
by the
first respondent.
[12]
In terms of the order dated 30 December 2017 the first respondent was
ordered to pay to Ford an amount totalling R 1 542 915.66,
and in
terms of the order dated 17 September 2020 the first respondent was
ordered to pay an amount of R 3 790 000.00 (from which
an amount of R
990 000 awarded as an interim payment in terms paragraph 9 of the
order had to be deducted). The amount effectively
due in terms of the
order of 17 September 2020 was therefore R 2 800 000.00 which became
payable on 2 October 2020, which was 14
days after the date of that
order.
[13]
After the order of 30 November 2017 was issued the following payments
were made by the first respondent:
[14]
In the Ford matter, a costs order was made against the plaintiff,
Ford, for the wasted costs of a postponement on 24 April 2018.
The
wasted costs in terms of that order was taxed and allocated in the
amount of R 88 063.69 on 27 November 2018. The amount owing
by Ford
to the first respondent in respect of those taxed costs was therefore
due on 27 November 2018.
[15]
It is this amount of R 88 063.69 which is the root cause of the
withholding of payment to the first to tenth applicants through
their
attorneys, Elliott Maris.
[16]
The nett effect is that the first respondent owes Ford substantially
more than the amount of R 88 063.69 she owed the first respondent.
That debt ceased to exist on 2 October 2020 g When the amount payable
in terms of the order of 27 September 2020 became due on
2 October
2020, the relatively small amount due by Ford to the first respondent
in law ceased to be owing because of set off against
a much larger
amount.
[17]
After the order of 17 September 2020 was issued, the following
payments in regard to the Ford matter were made by the first
respondent:
17.1
R 1 850 000.00 on 8 March 2021; and
17.2
R 950 000.00 on 10 May 2023.
[18]
The taxed and allocated costs for which the first respondent became
liable in the Ford matter amounted to R 1 403 333. 06.. Interest
began to accrue on that amount from 18 February 2022. Payment of the
taxed costs only (excluding accrued interest thereon) in the
amount
of R 1 403 333.06 was made on 29 June 2022.
[19]
On 8 March 2023 Mr, van Niekerk caused an email to be sent to the
first respondent enclosing all the relevant documents required
to
make payment (which the first respondent already had in any event) to
Ford in respect of the outstanding capital amount of R
950 000.00.
There was no response thereto. On 17 March 2023 the process followed
on 8 March was repeated Payment of the alleged
amount due in respect
of the wasted costs was demanded by Mr Ramjan, a financial assistant
in the “debtors” department
of the first respondent’s
head office in Pretoria.
[20]
This was followed by a telephonic discussion which Mr van Niekerk had
with Mr Ramjan on 5 May 2023. During this telephonic discussion
Mr
Ramain said that no payment whatsoever will be made because Elliott
Maris owes the wasted costs order in the Ford Mattrer to
the first
respondent. Mr van Niekerk pointed out to him that he is wrong based
on the clear terms of the court order of 24 April
2018 in terms of
which Ford was liable for those costs. It also pointed out to him
that the accrued interest payable by the first
respondent far exceeds
any amount previously due by Ford in respect of the wasted costs.
This attitude of Mr the Main can only
be interpreted as to be mala
fide and a wilful and in my view a direct defeat of the and purpose
of a
Road Accident Fund Act.
[21
]
On 10 May 2023 the first respondent made payment in respect of the
full outstanding capital of R 950 000,00 in the Ford natter
without
any deduction for the alleged amount due in respect of wasted costs
order.
[22]
The amount still owing by the first respondent’s cost order
against Ford and calculated at 31 October 2024 is the amount
of R 371
067.60 and as a result of interest is mounting daily.
[23]
It is clear from the papers that none of the applicants are in any
way indebted to the first
respondent.
[24]
From the facts set out above it is clear that the First Respondent
holds the applicant’s at ransom for the cost order against
Ford.
[25]
I therefore make the following order:
1
That leave be and is granted
to the applicants to file and rely on the supplementary affidavit of
Mr Hendrik August van Niekerk;
2
That the first and second respondent’s conduct of
“blocking” and/or intentionally delaying payment of
capital, costs and/or interest in terms of court orders and/or due
court process in respect of costs (namely allocators by taxing
masters), to the first to seventh and ninth to tenth applicants as
clients of the eleventh applicant ostensibly for payment of
an
outstanding amount due to the first respondent by another client of
the eleventh applicant, or for any other undisclosed reason,
be
declared unlawful (“the unlawful conduct”)
3 That the
first and second respondents be ordered to forthwith
3.1
cease with such unlawful conduct by unblocking or to desist from
delaying payments due to the eleventh applicant
in respect of the
first to seventh and ninth to tenth applicant
3.2
implement steps to make payment of any and all amounts due as
capital, interest and/or costs to the first
to seventh and ninth to
tenth applicants, such payment to be affected forthwith but by no
later than 14 days from date of this
order;
4
That the unlawful conduct by the second respondent and any and every
other person identified as below, be declared to be mala fide
and not
to fall within the remit of the protection afforded to employees and
officials of the first defendant in terms of
section 15(3)
of the
Road Accident Fund Act, no
56 of 1996
;
5
That the second respondent and/or any other person or persons
(“collectively referred to as “the transgressors”)
who may yet be identified and joined in these proceedings, be
declared to be guilty of contempt of court by having wilfully engaged
in the unlawful conduct;
6
Pay the costs of this application (in respect of Part A and Part B)
on a scale as between attorney a
nd
own client, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be
absolved
COETZEE, AJ
ACTING JUDGE
NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION
KIMBERLEY
For the Applicants: Adv.
WP de Waal SC instructed by Elliot Maris
For
the 1
st
& 2
nd
Respondents: Adv. DT Skosana SC instructed by Roux Welgemoed Du Plooy
[1]
Act
56 of 1996