Lejure v Road Accident Fund (Appeal) (HCAA26/2022) [2025] ZALMPPHC 154 (20 August 2025)

Case Note

Case: Matewos Jegano Lejure — Not stated
Court: High Court of South Africa Limpopo Division | Judge: Kganyago J | Case no.: HCAA26/2022
Dates: Hearing — 25th July 2025; Judgment — 20th August 2025

Reportability

Reportable: Yes

Cases Cited

• Stock v Stock 1981 (3) SA 1280 (A) at 1296E-F (para [10])
• Road Accident Fund Appeal Tribunal v Gouws and Another 2018 (3) SA 413 (SCA) at para 33 (para [10])
• Road Accident Fund v Guedes 2006 (5) SA 583 (SCA) (para [15])
• RAF v Kerridge 2019 (2) SA 233 (SCA) at para 44 (para [17])

Legislation Cited

• Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996; s 17(4)

Rules of Court Cited

None.

HEADNOTE

Summary
The appellant, Matewos Jegano Lejure, appealed against the dismissal of his quantum claim for damages following injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The court a quo had granted 100% merits in favor of the appellant but dismissed the quantum claim, concluding that the appellant's injuries had healed and did not prevent him from light to medium employment. The appeal court found that the lower court misdirected itself by not considering the totality of expert evidence regarding the appellant's ongoing impairments and disabilities, which affected his employability. The appeal was upheld, and the court ordered compensation for past and future loss of earnings, while postponing the claim for general damages.

Key Issues - Did the court a quo err in dismissing the appellant's quantum claim based on the conclusion that the injuries had healed? - Was there sufficient evidence to support the appellant's claim for loss of earnings?

Held

• The appeal is upheld (para [21.1]).
• The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with a new order granting the appellant compensation for past and future loss of earnings (para [21.2]).

THE FACTS

The appellant was a passenger in a vehicle involved in a collision on 24th June 2018, resulting in injuries for which he lodged a third-party claim with the Road Accident Fund (respondent). After the claim was not settled, the appellant instituted action against the respondent. The respondent did not defend the action, leading to a default judgment hearing. The court a quo granted 100% merits in favor of the appellant but dismissed the quantum claim, citing that the injuries had healed and did not prevent the appellant from light to medium employment.

The appellant had undergone surgeries and was hospitalized for approximately two months. Expert reports indicated that he suffered from chronic pain and residual impairments, which affected his ability to work. The appellant's occupational therapist and psychologist confirmed that he was no longer competitive in the job market due to his injuries. The respondent did not present any expert evidence to counter the appellant's claims.

THE ISSUES

The primary legal questions were whether the court a quo erred in dismissing the appellant's quantum claim based on the belief that his injuries had healed and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the appellant's claim for loss of earnings. The appeal court needed to assess the adequacy of the expert evidence presented and the lower court's reliance on selective parts of those reports.

ANALYSIS

The appeal court found that the court a quo misdirected itself by relying solely on parts of the orthopaedic surgeon's report and X-ray findings, which indicated that the appellant's injuries had healed. The court failed to consider the entirety of the expert opinions, which consistently pointed to ongoing impairments and disabilities that affected the appellant's employability. The orthopaedic surgeon noted that the appellant still required future surgeries and rehabilitation, while the occupational therapist highlighted significant cognitive and physical limitations that rendered the appellant unsuitable for his pre-accident job.

The court emphasized that expert witnesses should assist the court impartially and that their opinions should not be dismissed without sound justification. The court a quo's conclusion that the appellant was suitable for light to medium employment was inconsistent with the expert evidence, which indicated that the appellant was no longer competitive in the labor market. The appeal court also noted that the lower court should have considered the cumulative impact of the injuries on the appellant's career path and potential future earnings.

In determining the appropriate contingency deductions for future loss of earnings, the appeal court recognized that such calculations are inherently speculative and should account for the claimant's age and circumstances. Given the appellant's age and the economic context, a higher contingency deduction of 30% was deemed appropriate. The court concluded that the appellant's total loss of earnings amounted to R1,762,207.70.

ORDER

In the light of the above, the following order is made: - The appeal is upheld with costs including costs of one counsel on party and party scale B. - The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with the following: - The plaintiff succeeds 100% in his claim for compensation against the defendant. - The defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of R1,762,207.70 being for past and future loss of earnings. - Claim for general damages is postponed sine die. - Defendant to provide plaintiff with an undertaking in terms of section 17(4) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 in respect of 100% of accident-related future medical, hospital and related expenses. - Defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

• Expert witnesses must assist the court impartially and their opinions should not be dismissed without sound justification (para [10]).
• The determination of contingency deductions involves subjective estimation rather than objective calculation (para [15]).
• The younger the claimant, the more likely a higher than normal contingency deduction will be applied (para [17]).

COSTS

The costs order is for costs including costs of one counsel on party and party scale B (para [21.1]).

NOTES

None.