Marcus v Road Accident Fund (2023/066713) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1331 (10 December 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 1331 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Marcus v Road Accident Fund (2023/066713) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1331 (10 December 2025) Marcus v Road Accident Fund (2023/066713) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1331 (10 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_1331.html sino date 10 December 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: 2023/066713 (1) REPORTABLE (2) OF INTREST TO OTHER JUDGMES (3) REVISED In the matter between: MOGOANE THAPELO MARCUS                                                PLAINTIFF And ROAD ACCIDENT FUND                                                             DEFENDANT IRREGULAR STEP TO REQUEST REASONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT KILIAN AJ Summary : The request for reasons—advanced in the context of a juxtaposed application – draft order made an order of the court —invocation of Rule 49(1)(c) of the Uniform High Court Rules, a precursor to seeking leave to appeal from the High Court. Order : The request for reasons for the default judgment are, an irregular request; no contestation of issues capable of engaging the court in substantive deliberation. Introduction : [1] This matter was placed before me on 18 November 2025, and the defendant now invokes Uniform Rule 19(1)(c) in seeking as to why the court proceeded to make a default judgment an order of the court notwithstanding further anticipated proceedings in the matter. [2] In Take and Save Trading CC v Standard Bank of SA Ltd 2004(4)SA SA1 (SCA); [2004]1 ALL SA 597 (SCA), Harms J held, the recurrent actions of litigants, when expediency so directs, to deploy an assortment of proceedings designed to tweak ordinary litigation. The State Attorney, occupying a position of particular institutional official to the court, is consequently obliged to inhibit any deformation of the process and to ensure the prompt and unqualified engagement of the matter at hand. In Ewels v Francis (6497/2022) [2025] ZAWCHC 50 it follows that inconvenience said to confront a defendant is, on its own, devoid of determinative significance. [3] In Lee v Road Accident Fund (22812/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1068; 2024 (1) SA 183 (GJ), Wilson J engaged with the question of the appealability of a default judgment on the merits, invoking the Supreme Court of Appeal’s position in Pitelli v Everton Garden Projects CC 2010 (5) SA 171 (SCA). In that matter, the Court emphasised  the principle that when order lacks the requisite appellate character where the proceedings have not attained finality. The proposition is that a default judgment, being the product of a party’s non-appearance, remains inherently provisional to the extent that the absent litigant is not closed from seeking its variation or reconsideration. [4] Reasons for the default judgment is, in the circumstances, irregular request, and no such reasons are to be provided. Kilian AJ Acting Judge of the High Court Johannesburg HEARD ON AND ORDER:                    18 November 2025 REASONS DECIDED ON:                    01 December 2025 For the Applicant:            T Nyevera Instructed by:                  Mogashoe Attorneys For the Defendant:          Lutho Klaas Instructed by:                  State Attorney sino noindex make_database footer start