Maepa v Road Accident Fund (2021/44473) [2025] ZAGPJHC 422 (25 April 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 422 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Maepa v Road Accident Fund (2021/44473) [2025] ZAGPJHC 422 (25 April 2025) Maepa v Road Accident Fund (2021/44473) [2025] ZAGPJHC 422 (25 April 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_422.html sino date 25 April 2025 ###### IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2021/44473 1. Reportable:  No 2. Of interest to other judges: No 3. Revised 25 April 2025 WRIGHT J MAEPA, MILLICENT                                                                  PLAINTIFF and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND                                                          DEFENDANT JUDGMENT WRIGHT J 1. In this, mostly settled action in which Ms Maepa, as plaintiff seeks damages from the defendant Fund I am, by agreement to decide only one narrow issue, relating to counsel’s costs. 2. The matter was set down for trial on 22 April 2025. Due to a shortage of Judges, the parties’ legal practitioners were informed only late on 24 April 2025 that the matter was allocated to me. I was informed of the allocation only during the late morning of 25 April 2025. The matter proceeded over Teams, a few minutes later, at 12 noon on 25 April 2025. 3. Each side has prepared a draft order, recording the settlement and its terms and reflecting the two different points of view relating to counsel’s costs. Mr Raikane for Ms Maepa and Mr Klaas for the Fund presented oral argument over Teams. 4. The parties have agreed that costs, to be paid by the Fund, should be on the party and party B scale. 5. Mr Raikane, for Ms Maepa asked for costs of counsel for 22-25 April 2025, both days included. 6. Mr Klaas tendered Ms Maepa’s counsel’s costs for 24 and 25 April 2025. 7. Mr Raikane said that he has held himself available since 22 April 2025. He also said that he spent some time, since then, dealing with the matter, for example checking settlement proposals. I accept Mr Raikane’s word without hesitation. 8. Mr Klaas asked rhetorically, what if no Judge is available for ten days? In my view, the question is valid. 9. Neither side can be blamed for the delay in the start of the hearing. 10. By way of comparison, it was long the practice at the Johannesburg Bar that counsel did not charge waiting time even though they were obliged to remain available and were not allowed to double brief. This had the advantage, to litigants, and irrespective of whether or not a costs award was in favour of or against a litigant, that a litigant did not have to pay for unused time. 11. I do not make the finding that counsel generally may not charge for waiting time. That question is not before me. Nor do I make the finding that Mr Raikane may not charge his client, Ms Maepa a trial fee for 22 and 23 April 2025. That question too, is not before me. What is before me is a separate question, namely whether the Fund should be liable for the costs of Ms Maepa’s counsel for 22 and 23 April 2025. In my view, the Fund should not be saddled with such costs. 12. In cases such as the present, a balance needs to be drawn between compensating adequately a litigant in whose favour a costs award is made and not over burdening the other party who has to pay the costs. In my view, on present facts, counsel’s trial fee for two days rather than four days is fair, at least insofar as the taxation of these costs against the Fund is concerned. 13. The question of what may apply where punitive costs are awarded does not arise here. Nor does the question of collapse fees arise. I refrain from dealing with these questions. ORDER 1. An order is made ito the draft order at 17-6 to 17-10 of caselines. GC Wright Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Johannesburg HEARD:                 25 April 2025 DELIVERED:         25 April 2025 APPEARANCES: Plaintiff                 Adv Tebogo Raikane 079 044 7652 Tebogo@pabasa.co.za Instructed by Mkwanazi M.I Associates keba@mkhwanaziandassociates.co.za 016 422 0457 Defendant            Att M Lutho Klaas luthok@raf.co.za 0839442999 Instructed by       Road Accident Fund State Attorney sino noindex make_database footer start