Road Accident Fund v Gudza (2022-918) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1359 (11 December 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 1359 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Road Accident Fund v Gudza (2022-918) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1359 (11 December 2025) Road Accident Fund v Gudza (2022-918) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1359 (11 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1359.html sino date 11 December 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 2022-918 (1)      REPORTABLE: NO (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3)      REVISED. (4)      Date: 11 December 2025 Signature: In the matter between: ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Applicant And NONHLANHLA GUDZA Respondent JUDGMENT NYATHI J INTRODUCTION [1]         This is an application by the Road Accident Fund (“the applicant”) for rescission of a default judgment granted against it on 31 March 2023 by Killian AJ. The applicant also seeks condonation for the late filing of the rescission application and an extension of time to file its plea. [2]         The respondent opposes the application, contending that the judgment was properly obtained and that the applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for rescission. BACKGROUND [3]         The respondent instituted action against the applicant following the death of her husband, Mr Fortune Gudza, in a motor vehicle accident on 14 January 2021. [4]         The respondent claimed damages for loss of support in her personal capacity and on behalf of two minor children. [5]         On 22 July 2022, Her Ladyship Bam J ordered the applicant to file its plea within 20 days, failing which it would be barred. The applicant failed to comply. [6]         On 31 March 2023, Killian AJ granted default judgment in favour of the respondent in the sum of R2 224 438.00. GROUNDS FOR RESCISSION [7]         The applicant relies on Rule 42(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court, which empowers the Court to rescind an order erroneously sought or granted in the absence of a party affected thereby. [8]         The applicant contends that the default judgment was erroneously granted because: (a)  The deceased allegedly did not have lawful immigration status at the time of the accident. (b)  The visa and identity documents submitted were fraudulent or invalid according to the Department of Home Affairs. (c)   The deceased’s employment with the Department of Education was irregular, as he purportedly entered South Africa only after the date of commencement of employment. Namely, 28 December 2019 and 01 March 2019 respectively. [9]         The applicant argues that these irregularities raise triable issues and demonstrate a bona fide defence to the respondent’s claim. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY [10]     The applicant attributes its failure to file a plea to administrative difficulties within the State Attorney’s office, including the transfer of files between practitioners and heavy workloads. [11]     The delay in bringing the rescission application is explained by subsequent investigations into fraudulent claims and related litigation, including the “Lyton application” and pending appeals concerning the RAF’s directives on foreign claimants. LEGAL PRINCIPLES [12]     Rule 42(1)(a) requires that: ·       The judgment was erroneously sought or granted; ·       It was granted in the absence of the applicant; and ·       The applicant’s rights are affected. [13]     Once these requirements are met, rescission may be granted, though the Court retains a discretion to refuse relief (see Zuma v Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture [2021] ZACC 28). [14]     In considering condonation, the Court must weigh the degree of lateness, the explanation therefor, prospects of success, and the importance of the matter (see Melane v Santam Insurance Co Ltd 1962 (4) SA 531 (A)). ANALYSIS [15]     The applicant has demonstrated that the default judgment was granted in its absence and that its rights are materially affected. [16]     The allegations of fraudulent documentation and unlawful employment constitute triable issues. While the Court does not determine the merits of the defence at this stage, it is sufficient that a bona fide defence exists. [17]     The explanation for the delay, though not entirely satisfactory, is detailed and not indicative of wilful default. [18]     Public interest considerations weigh heavily in favour of rescission. The RAF is a public entity tasked with safeguarding resources for legitimate claimants. Allowing potentially fraudulent claims to stand would undermine the integrity of the Fund and prejudice the public. CONCLUSION [19]     In the circumstances, the interests of justice require that the default judgment be rescinded, condonation granted, and the matter be ventilated on its merits. ORDER The following order is made: - Condonation for the late filing of the rescission application is granted. Condonation for the late filing of the rescission application is granted. - The default judgment granted by Killian AJ on 31 March 2023 is rescinded and set aside. The default judgment granted by Killian AJ on 31 March 2023 is rescinded and set aside. - The applicant is granted leave to file its plea within 20 days of this order. The applicant is granted leave to file its plea within 20 days of this order. - Costs of this application shall be borne by the respondent on a party and party scale B. Costs of this application shall be borne by the respondent on a party and party scale B. J.S. NYATHI Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Pretoria Date of hearing: 12/05/2025 Date of Judgment: 11 December 2025 On behalf of the Applicant: Mr. MD Sekwakweng Instructed by: Malatji & Co. Attorneys On behalf of the Respondents: Mr. ACJ van Dyk Instructed by: Bardenhorst Attorneys, c/o HW Theron Inc. Pretoria. Delivery : This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal representatives by email and uploaded on the CaseLines electronic platform. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 11/12/ 2025. sino noindex make_database footer start