Nala v Road Accident Fund (2015/38831) [2025] ZAGPJHC 207 (28 February 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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 207 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Nala v Road Accident Fund (2015/38831) [2025] ZAGPJHC 207 (28 February 2025) Nala v Road Accident Fund (2015/38831) [2025] ZAGPJHC 207 (28 February 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_207.html sino date 28 February 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG [1] REPORTABLE: YES [2] OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO [3] REVISED: YES DATE: 28 February 2025 Case Number: 2015 / 38831 In the matter between: NALA: DUMISANE SOLOMON Plaintiff and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant Summary: Application for Postponement from the Bar – records of the Defendant indicating that matter was defended previously – postponement required to locate records Special Circumstances – Defendant having terminated its panel of attorneys and not recovering all documentation Request for Postponement at late stage – RAF unable to explain why it only became aware of this application at a late stage and seeking postponement at a late stage. ORDER OF COURT The following order is made: 1. This matter is postponed sine die; 2. Costs are reserved. JUDGMENT ZUBAIR KHAN AJ [1] The Plaintiff set this matter down to default judgment. At the hearing of this matter, the Defendant sought a postponement on the basis that its records indicates that the matter was previously timeously opposed. [2] Counsel for the Defendant indicated that they have not been able to locate the Notice of Intention to Defend but their computer system indicates that their previous panel attorney did defend the matter. [3] Defendant is unable to satisfactorily explain why they did not attempt to locate the document when the matter was set down for default judgment and the Notice Served on Defendant. [4] Notwithstanding, if there does exist a Notice of Intention to Defend then the Plaintiff would not be entitled to be before this Court. I am unable to determine if there exists a Notice to Defend or Not. [5] In the circumstances, it is appropriate that this matter postpones and the issue of costs be held over for future determination. [6] In the result the following order is made: 3. This matter is postponed sine die; 4. The costs of this application are reserved. ZUBAIR KHAN ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ and/or parties’ representatives by email and by being uploaded to CaseLines. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 12h00 on 28 February 2025 . APPEARANCES: COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:                                TE MORUDU ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT:                              MOHLATLOLE TP ATTORNEYS COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:                                   MRS NZANZIYA ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT:                         STATE ATTORNEY (JOHANNESBURG) sino noindex make_database footer start