Velaji v Road Accident Fund

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: Malungana AJ
• Judgment Date: 12 September 2023
• Citation: 2023 JDR 3521 (GJ)
• Hearing Date: 12 September 2023
• Docket Number: 38604/2021
• Court: Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg

Malungana AJ:

Introduction

[1]

This matter appeared before me by way of a notice of motion in the settlement court. In the notice of motion the applicant sought the following relief:

“1.

The merits are settled on 100% in favour of the Applicant;

2023 JDR 3521 p2

Malungana AJ

2.

That the Respondent is ordered and liable for payment in the sum of R2 950 613,62 in full and final settlement of the claim of Lulama Princes Mpukwanaa Velaji and such payment to be made into the trust account of the Applicant’s Attorney of records on or before the . . . . . . . . . . . . 2023;

3.

That the Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the Application on attorney and own client scale. . .”

[2]

The background facts are contained in the founding affidavit deposed by Joscelina Weziwe Nkqeto, and amplified in the submissions made by the applicant in support of the settlement agreement. It appears from the papers that Lulama Mpukwana (‘the deceased’), was injured in a motor vehicle collision which occurred on 24 December 2019. As a result the collision she instituted a delictual claim against the respondent in terms of the provisions of the Road Accident Fund Act, 56 of 1996.

[3]

On 22 April 2022 the respondent (RAF), made an offer of settlement as follows: [1]

a.	Loss of Earnings	R 1, 450 613.62;
b.	General Damages (Pain and Suffering, Permanent disability)	R1, 500 000.00
	Total	R2, 950 613.62

2023 JDR 3521 p3

Malungana AJ

[4]

On 5 May 2022 the deceased, through her attorneys of record accepted the defendant’s offer of settlement. [2]

[5]

On 15 June 2022, Lulama passed away, and the applicant was appointed as an executrix of her estate. [3]

[6]

In response to the applicant’s notice of motion the respondent, through the state attorney’s office filed an opposing affidavit in which it inter alia raised an in limine point paraphrased as follows:

a.

The applicant has approached the Court in terms of the provisions of Rule 34(7) of the Uniform Rules of Court.

b.

The applicant seeks a compelling order against the respondent to pay the amount of R2 950 613.62;

c.

Contrary to the rule the applicant seeks an order to compel the court to make payment instead of the settlement an order of court.

d.

It is not competent for this Court to compel the respondent to make payment of the alleged settlement amount;

e.

Consequently the application falls short of the requirements of rule 34(7) of the Uniform Rules of Court, and ought to be dismissed with costs.

[7]

Rule 34 regulates the making of offers. In the present case the applicant has approached the court in terms of sub-rule 7, which...