Mathonsi v Road Accident Fund (24655/18) [2025] ZAGPJHC 577 (11 June 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 577 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Mathonsi v Road Accident Fund (24655/18) [2025] ZAGPJHC 577 (11 June 2025) Mathonsi v Road Accident Fund (24655/18) [2025] ZAGPJHC 577 (11 June 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_577.html sino date 11 June 2025 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG Case no:24655/18 (1)  REPORTABLE: NO (2)  OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3)  REVISED: NO 11 June 2025 In the matter between: MATHONSI, SOZA OBERT                                                          APPLICANT AND ROAD ACCIDENT FUND                                                             RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Kilian AJ Introduction [1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment I handed down on 23 September 2024, in which I declared that the defendant’s purported sole negligence – or 100% negligence – in causing a motor vehicle accident amounted to an absolution from the instance. The plaintiff in the leave to appeal contends that I erred in my findings on these issues. For the sake of clarity, I refer to the parties as they were in the original application. [2] I must now determine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion, or whether there is some other compelling reason why leave to appeal should be granted, as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. [1] The test – whether another court might come to a different conclusion – has been raised to clarify whether another court would do so. I am of the view that there is no reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion. [3] The plaintiff failed to present clear and credible evidence, and the court is not permitted to infer negligence in order to satisfy the plaintiff's burden of proof, as outlined in the judgment. Furthermore, the court cannot infer the occurrence of the accident itself which necessitated prove along with the purported presence of another driver as common circumstances. This failure further undermines the plaintiff's argument for negligence. [4] Where no credible evidence has been established, I am not persuaded that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success. [5] Order: The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. Kilian N Acting Judge of the High Court, Johannesburg, Gauteng Counsel for the Applicant:  Adv Maphelela instructed by Mathebula Inc Counsel for the Respondent:  Ms N Mhlongo (State Attorney) Date of argument:             6 June 2025 Date of judgment:             11 June 2025 [1] 10 of 2013. sino noindex make_database footer start