Case Law[2024] ZAGPPHC 994South Africa
Mahlangu v Road Accident Fund (096233/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 994 (3 October 2024)
High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)
3 October 2024
Judgment
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 994
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Mahlangu v Road Accident Fund (096233/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 994 (3 October 2024)
Mahlangu v Road Accident Fund (096233/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 994 (3 October 2024)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2024_994.html
sino date 3 October 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE
NO: 096233/2023
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED.
DATE
2/7/2024
SIGNATURE
In
the matter between:
TRACY
THEMBI MAHLANGU
APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT FUND
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
PIENAAR
AJ
Introduction
1.
The Plaintiff, Ms Tracy
Thembi Mahlangu, instituted action proceedings in her personal
capacity against the defendant for damages
in terms of the
Road
Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
,
pursuant to a motor vehicle collision.
2. The Plaintiff
issued summons for Past hospital and medical expenses of R300 000,00,
Future medical expenses an undertaking,
Future loss of earnings of R7
152 900,00, and General Damages of R3 000 000,00 which were served on
the defendant.
3. At the
commencement of the trial I was informed that the issue of liability
(the merits) was settled 100% in favour of
the plaintiff. The
plaintiff was a passenger at the time of the accident and was 34
years old.
[1]
4. General damages
have been settled in the amount of R2 300 000,00 by way of an offer
and acceptance.
[2]
5. The matter was
enrolled for default judgment on 3rd July 2024 for determination of
loss of earnings claim.
6. On 25th day of
June 2024 the Defendant enter an appearance to defend.
[3]
7. On 28th day of
June 2024 the plaintiff served a motion to set aside the notice of
defendant on the defendant.
[4]
8. Plaintiff
Counsel, Adv Malatji made submissions that the default judgment
against the Defendant should proceed and that
the notice of intention
to defendant should be set aside on the grounds that same constitutes
an abuse of the court processes.
9. I informed the
Plaintiff that judgment will be reserved.
10. The Plaintiff filed
several medico legal reports in support of her claim. Plaintiff
proceeded by way of
Rule 38(2)
uniform rules of court.
Analysis
11. It is important
to state that a default judgment is granted not because the defendant
against whom it is granted does
not have a defence to the action but
it is one granted in terms of the rules with the discretion of a
Court
12. In my view, before a
Court exercises its discretion, it must be satisfied that a valid
claim has been presented to justify a
judgment against the defaulting
party.
13.
The purpose of hearing evidence, is to enable the Court to reach a
decision that a valid claim in law existed. If that
is not the
purpose, the Court shall be required to enter default judgment as a
matter of course once a party appears without
the defendant.
Such shall be inconsistent with the constitutional duties of a Court
of law. Taking into account that section 165(5)
of
the Constitution dictates that an order or decision issued by a
Court binds all persons and organs of state, a Court should
not
willy-nilly, as it were, dispense with orders or
decisions, even in the circumstances that the evidence before
it does
not justify an order or decision.
Dr
M Modisane (Orthopaedic Surgeon)
14.
The Plaintiff was transported by ambulance to Kwa-Mhlanga hospital,
upon arrival she received emergency treatment and x-rays
were done.
Thereafter she was transferred to Sunshine Hospital where she was
admitted for a month into the facility. According
to Dr
Modisane she sustained a humerus fracture and femur fracture,
ankle fracture and T11 fracture with catherer
neurology,
neurogenic bowel, neurogenic bladder.
The
paralysis will limit her choice of occupation.
Linda
Maye (Clinical Psychologist)
15. Miss Mahlangu likely
sustained a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury as a
result of her involvement in the accident.
Her psychological
symptomology (depressive disorder, due to a traumatic brain injury
symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder,
and decreased self
esteem) post accident have also impacted negatively on her enjoyment
and quality of life.
Rabelani Makuya
(Occupational Therapist)
16. At the time of
the accident (pre accident) Ms Mahlangu was employed at Department of
Social Development as a Social Worker.
17. She was unable
to return to work as her contract expired in May 2021 and she was
still at Rehab center. In December
2021, she secured a position
as a Social Worker at Department of Social Development. She performed
only office-based duties and
her contract expired in March 2022.
Ruwa Y Ntuli
(Industrial Psychologist)
18. Ms Mahlangu was
involved in the motor vehicle accident on 6 December 2020. At the
time of the accident she was employed
as a Social Worker.
19. Post accident
Ms Mahlangu is unemployed. She suffers from being a paraplegic
and she is on wheelchair. Ms
Mahlangu is likely to have suffered
physical, emotional loss as well as a loss of likely earnings.
Collateral
informaton - Caselines 003-180
20.
Employment collateral was not obtained.[ pg 003-180 on Caselines]
Ms
Mahlangu testified
21.
Ms Mahlangu testified that she employed as a Contract Worker at the
Social Development. They also gave her another contract,
which
started in December 2022, it was a four months contract. She was
earning R6000,00 +-
She
started receiving Social grants and is still receiving social grants.
Currently she
received an amount of R2000,00 a month social grants.
Tsebo Actuaries
22. Tsebo actuary report
is based on the Industrial Psychologist report.
23. Ms Ntuli (IP)
did not contact the Department of Social Development. There is no
collateral information pre morbidly of
which the department was happy
with her work or not. Post morbidly, according to the testimony of Ms
Mahlangu she is working on
a contract basis if necessary by the
Social Development. She is also receiving social grant on a monthly
basis.
Conclusion:
24. Counsel for the
Plaintiff referred the Court to the matter of Seronica Nathram
[1]
where the Plaintiff’s attorneys contended that the RAF was
simply using its notice of intention to defend in order to delay
matters. The RAF’s response was contained in an answering
affidavit.
25. I refer to paragraph
29 of the above mentioned judgment of my brother Judge Davis as
follows: “Any determination made
by a court in this regard
should not only be case-specific, but also only be done after the RAF
has been given the opportunity
to respond and to be heard”
ORDER:
For
the above reasons, I make the following order:
1. The application
to set aside the notice to defend is refused.
2. The Defendant is
ordered to file their answering affidavit by no later than 14 October
2024
3. The Plaintiff is
granted permission to apply for the allocation of a preferential
hearing date
4.
The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff costs on Attorney and Client
scale.
Counsel costs on
scale C
PIENAAR (AJ)
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
Date
of hearing : 3 July 2024
Date
of judgment : 3 October 2024
Appearances
For
the Plaintiff :
Adv S
M Malatji
Instructed
by:
Fish
Letsoalo Inc
For
Defendant:
Road
Accident Fund
No
appearance
Link
no: 5226817
[1]
Seronica Nathram Case no: 46876/2020
[1]
Acceptance of merits offer - Section 010
[2]
Acceptance of General Damages and Future medical expenses - Section
011
[3]
Notice of intention to defendant - Section 016
[4]
Motion to set aside notice to defend - Section 017
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Mahlalela v Road Accident Fund (14395/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 442 (15 April 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 442High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)100% similar
Mahlangu and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (16205/2016) [2024] ZAGPPHC 874 (14 August 2024)
[2024] ZAGPPHC 874High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Mahlangu v S (A136/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1029 (14 October 2024)
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1029High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Mahlangu v S (A264/24) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1086 (24 October 2024)
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1086High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Mahlangu v S (A238/23) [2024] ZAGPPHC 363; 2024 (2) SACR 219 (GP) (11 April 2024)
[2024] ZAGPPHC 363High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar