Dercksen v Road Accident Fund (67254/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 970 (3 October 2024)

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 >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPPHC 970 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Dercksen v Road Accident Fund (67254/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 970 (3 October 2024) Dercksen v Road Accident Fund (67254/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 970 (3 October 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2024_970.html sino date 3 October 2024 THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG HIGH COURT DIVISION, PRETORIA Case no: 67254 /2021 (1)      REPORTABLE: NO (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3)      REVISED. DATE: 03 OCTOBER 2024 SIGNATURE In the matter between: DERCKSEN C J                                                                               Plaintiff And ROAD ACCIDENT FUND                                                                  Defendant JUDGMENT MAKHOBA, J [1]      The plaintiff instituted an action against the defendant for damages suffered as a result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 9 January 2019. [2]      The only issue before court is merits. The issue of quantum is to be postponed sine die . [3]      On the date of trial the defendant was not represented and an attempt to settle the matter did not yield any results. Counsel addressed the court, and the court asked him to file heads. [4]      During submissions by counsel he handed an affidavit by the plaintiff (CaseLines 05-3) setting out under oath how the accident happened. [5]      It is trite that the onus rests on the plaintiff to prove his case on balance of probabilities see Pillay v Krishna , 1946 SA 946. [6]      In his affidavit, plaintiff says the following “I cannot remember how the accident happened and or the mechanisms surrounding the accident. I also cannot remember whether or not I was a driver or passenger at the time of accident”. [7]      The plaintiff’s affidavit is the only evidence under oath in respect of merits. [8]       Counsel for the plaintiff contradicted the above affidavit in his heads of argument. He submits as follows (CaseLines 19-3) “ 2.5 From the available evidence, it is clear that no negligence can be attributed to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff was a passenger in the vehicle when the accident occurred between the first and second insured drivers..” [9]      In my view the submissions by counsel for the plaintiff are not supported by available evidence uploaded on CaseLines. [10]    I am further of the view that in the absence of any evidence under oath on how the collision happened, the court cannot find that the plaintiff proved his case on balance of probabilities [11]    I make the following order: 11.1    Plaintiff’s claim on the merits is dismissed. 11.2    Defendant to pay plaintiff’s cost on scale “A”. MAKHOBA J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA HEARD AND RESERVED JUDGMENT: 28 AUGUST 2024 JUDGMENT HANDED DOWN ON: 03 OCTOBER 2024 Appearances : For the Applicant: Adv R Kooverjie (instructed by) Gildenhuys Malatji Incorporated For the Respondent: N/A. sino noindex make_database footer start