Oosthuizen v Road Accident Fund

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle collision on 1 March 2003 and instituted a damages claim against the Road Accident Fund in the Pretoria Magistrates’ Court in March 2004. Subsequent medico‑legal reports obtained during 2004 and later revealed that the quantum of his damages exceeded the magistrates’ court’s monetary jurisdiction. Despite this, his attorneys persisted in the magistrates’ court and amended the claim to remain within jurisdiction. By the time it was accepted that the claim exceeded jurisdiction, prescription prevented withdrawal and the issuing of fresh summons in the High Court. The appellant therefore applied to the High Court for an order transferring the pending magistrates’ court action to the High Court.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the High Court’s refusal to order a transfer was upheld.

The case clarifies the limits of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under section 173 of the Constitution and confirms that it cannot be used to authorise transfers from magistrates’ courts to High Courts at a plaintiff’s instance. It reinforces the principle that plaintiffs are bound by their choice of forum and that courts cannot use procedural powers to revive prescribed claims.