Mohlala v Road Accident Fund (13129/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1276 (29 November 2024)

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 >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPJHC 1276 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Mohlala v Road Accident Fund (13129/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1276 (29 November 2024) Mohlala v Road Accident Fund (13129/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1276 (29 November 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2024_1276.html sino date 29 November 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO :  13129/2022 DATE :  29-11-2024 (1) REPORTABLE: NO. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO. (3) REVISED. DATE: 29/11/2024 SIGNATURE In the matter between MOHLALA, SINAH M                                                      Plaintiff and THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND                                        Defendant JUDGMENT WEIDEMAN, AJ :  This matter was number 36 on the roll for the week of 8 October 2024.  The minor involved in the accident was born on 9 November 2009 and the accident from which this claim arose occurred on 1 June 2020.  The minor was 10 years old at the time and rebuttable doli incapax. The statutory Section 19(f) affidavit was attested to by the plaintiff and who was not present at the time of the accident.  The content of her affidavit takes the matter no further. The only other document relating to the circumstances of the accident is the officer's accident report form and which is to be found at CaseLines 010-100.  On page 2 of the OAR under the heading "accident sketch" it merely states "as per sketch plan", but there is no sketch plan. Lower down on the same page and under the heading "description of the accident" it merely states "as per A1", but there is no A1 uploaded. The only suggestion of a possible explanation of how the accident may have occurred is to be found on page 4 of the OAR where someone, identity unknown, and under the heading "pedestrians and cyclists only" marked the following blocks with "X"; 1.         Roadway; 2.         Within 50 metres of crossing; 3.         Under "pedestrian action" - "running"; 4.         Under "colour of clothing" - "light". To summarise: the unknown author records that the accident occurred on the roadway, within 50 metres of a crossing, whilst a pedestrian in light clothing was running. I would venture to guess that most, if not all, children in South Africa at the age of 10 and a half know how to safely cross a road.  However, even if the child is given the benefit of the doubt as being rebuttable doli incapax , with no knowledge of how to cross a road, and in this regard the Court took cognisance of the information in the medical reports that the child was prematurely born and had pre-existing learning vulnerabilities.  Even then, the summary above is not above to visit the driver of the vehicle with any negligence.  It confirms a factual situation, but it does not speak to the question of negligence. My order is accordingly as follows: 1.         The application for default judgment is refused; 2.         No order as to costs. I hand down the judgment. WEIDEMAN, AJ JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT DATE: 11/12/2024 sino noindex make_database footer start