The Road Accident Fund (RAF) has failed to rescind a judgment originally secured by claimant Mignon Rossouw, related to claims for damages following injuries sustained in a collision.
Pretoria High Court Judge E van der Schyff, in his ruling, emphasised that the RAF's request for rescission lacked substantial grounds since the entity had previously opted to remain absent from critical legal hearings.
The extensive background of the case outlines Rossouw's initial claim against the RAF, which she lodged on 15 October 2021 after suffering injuries due to a road accident. Although the Fund acknowledged the claim's validity, it failed to respond appropriately when action was taken in court in February 2022, leading to a series of procedural delays. Eventually, despite being given ample opportunities to engage, the RAF was unable to fulfil its obligations under the rules of civil procedure.
Rossouw's counsel argued that allowing the RAF to wait until the last minute to oppose the default judgment was not only inappropriate but also undermined the integrity of the legal process. The RAF asserted that its defence was intact, claiming that the order in August 2023 was incompetent because it did not strike out their defence prior to being heard on a default basis.
However, the court found no merit in the RAF's arguments, noting that it had been duly notified of all proceedings but chose not to participate. Consequently, Judge Van der Schyff highlighted that under Rule 42(1)(a), the Fund's failure to appear at the earlier hearings meant that it could not claim relief based on absence.
Moreover, the judge ruled that participation in the trial regarding the quantum of damages was still permissible, despite claims of an unregulated defence. The judgment also confirmed that the agency's deliberate inaction did not justify the rescission sought.
The court concluded that the RAF's application to vary and rescind the order granted was not only unsuccessful but also came with a cost burden.
