Vombe v Road Accident Fund (2019/39788) [2023] ZAGPJHC 467 (12 May 2023)

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 >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPJHC 467 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Vombe v Road Accident Fund (2019/39788) [2023] ZAGPJHC 467 (12 May 2023) Vombe v Road Accident Fund (2019/39788) [2023] ZAGPJHC 467 (12 May 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_467.html sino date 12 May 2023 ###### IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2019/39788 NOT REPORTABLE NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES REVISED 12.05.23 In the matter between: VOMBE, CARLITOS VASCO PLAINTIFF and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT Neutral Citation : Vombe Carlitos Vasco v Road Accident Fund (Case No: 39788/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC  467 (12 May 2023) JUDGMENT – WRIGHT J WRIGHT J 1. The plaintiff seeks default judgment at trial, the defence of the RAF having been struck out. Ms Steyn appears for the plaintiff and Ms Makhathini for the RAF. 2. I allowed Ms Makhathini to address me as in my view, I need to consider various questions. Both Ms Steyn and Ms Makhathini presented helpful argument. 3. Ms Makhathini seeks a postponement. The plaintiff, she says is a foreigner and this may well impact on the question of what he may claim. There appears to be pending, the case of Adam Mudawo v Minister of Transport and the RAF. Such a case appears on caselines as a case in Pretoria under number 11795/22. The issue seems to be the legality of a directive issued by the RAF concerning foreigners. 4. Ms Mkakhathini suggests that there is case, possibly between the same parties pending in the Constitutional Court. I could not find such a case on the Constitutional Court website, but Ms Makhathini may well be correct. In my view, it does not matter for present purposes whether or not the Mudawo case, or a similar case is before the High Court in Pretoria or the Constitutional Court. 5. I am told that my brother, Baqwa J postponed recently a similar case in the Johannesburg High Court for this reason. That case appears to be Chola v RAF 4182/19. 6. In my view, it would be wise to postpone the present case pending a decision on the matter. 7. A judge faced with a request for judgment at trial following a striking out of the defence still needs to consider the evidence and the law before granting an order. 8. There seems to be disagreement between the parties as to the factual circumstances surrounding the plaintiff’s status and in the circumstances, even if the matter were to proceed now, I would want clarification, from both sides, as to the correct factual situation. ORDER 1. The trial is postponed sine die. 2. Costs reserved. GC Wright Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Johannesburg HEARD  :  11 and 12 May 2023 DELIVERED :  12 May 2023 APPEARANCES  : PLAINTIFF Adv Lindi Steyn steyn.lindi@vdelaw.co.za 082 264 0068 Instructed by Van Der Elst Attorneys 011 731 0000 rhino@vdelaw.co.za DEFENDANT State Attorney Phindile Makhathini 073 689 4920 phindilem1@raf.co.za sino noindex make_database footer start