Rae v Road Accident Fund (3473/20) [2022] ZAGPPHC 119 (9 February 2022)

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 >> 2022 >> [2022] ZAGPPHC 119 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Rae v Road Accident Fund (3473/20) [2022] ZAGPPHC 119 (9 February 2022) Rae v Road Accident Fund (3473/20) [2022] ZAGPPHC 119 (9 February 2022) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2022_119.html sino date 9 February 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED: NO DATE      09 FEBRUARY 2022 Case Number: 3473/20 In the matter between: A. RAE                                                                                                                       APPLICANT AND ROAD ACCIDENT FUND                                                                                      RESPONDENT JUDGMENT KHWINANA AJ INTRODUCTION [1] This is an application for leave to appeal to the full bench of the above honourable court against my judgment granted on this the 27 th day of September 2021. [2]       Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, Act 10 of 2013 ("the Superior Courts Act"),       regulates applications for leave to appeal and provides: '(1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that- (a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or (ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration; (b) the decision sought on appeal does not fall within the ambit of section 16(2)(a); and (c) where the decision sought to be appealed does not dispose of all the issues in the case, the appeal would lead to a just and prompt resolution of the real issues between the parties.' [3]       The test in an application for leave to appeal prior to the Superior Courts Act was whether         there were reasonable prospects that another court may come to a different conclusion. Section 17(1) [1] has raised the test, as Bertelsmann J, correctly pointed out in The Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen & 18 Others 2014 JDR 2325 (LCC) at para : 'It is clear that the threshold for granting leave to appeal against a judgment of a High Court has been raised in the new Act. The former test whether leave to appeal should be granted was a reasonable prospect that another court might come to a different conclusion, see Van Heerden v Cornwright & Others 1985 (2) SA 342 (T) at 343H. The use of the word "would" in the new statute indicates a measure of certainty that another court will differ from the court whose judgment is sought to be appealed against.' [4]       The applicant’s leave to appeal is on parts of my judgment, save to say the reasons have been given in my judgment. [5]       In terms of Rule 42 (1) provides that a court may mero motu or on application, rescind or vary; (a)    An order or judgment erroneously sought or erroneously granted in    the absence of any party affected thereby; (b)    An order or judgment in which there is an ambiguity, error or omission; (c)     An order or judgment granted as a result of a mistake common to the parties. [6]       I have noted an error on the draft order in relation to the percentage in favour of the plaintiff where it reads less 75% whereas it must read less 25% of the plaintiff’s proven or agreed claim.  I accordingly vary that portion of my judgment in terms of Rule 42 (1) (b) and rectify it to read less 25% on the draft order. I have therefore amended the draft order and marked it X. In the result: 1. Leave to appeal is refused. 2. Draft order is amended and marked X to read less 25% 2. No order as to Costs. ENB KHWINANA ACTING JUDGE OF NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA DATE OF HEARING:     02 DECEMBER 2021 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09 FEBRUARY 2022 [1] Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Tuck 1989 (4) SA 888 (T) at 890 sino noindex make_database footer start