Mashengani v Road Accident Fund (15034/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1207 (18 November 2025)

Case Note

Oscar Mashengani v Road Accident Fund
Case Number: 15034/2020
Date: 18 November 2025

Reportability

This case is not formally categorized as reportable; however, it raises significant legal principles pertaining to the liability of the Road Accident Fund (RAF) under the Road Accident Fund Act (RAFA). The case highlights the vital distinction between negligent and intentional acts regarding compensation claims under the RAF framework. The judgement elucidates legal interpretations that may have broader implications for similar claims in South Africa, making it of interest to other judges.

Cases Cited

1. Garnier v Kilkenny and ICBC (2006 BCPC 357)
2. Goodenough NO v RAF [2003] ZASCA 81
3. S v Desai 1983 (4) SA 415 (N)
4. R v Riddell [2018] 1 All ER 62; [2017] EWCA Crim 413
5. Motladile v Road Accident Fund [2025] ZAGPPHC 229
6. VM and Another v MEC for Education, Eastern Cape Provincial Department and Others [2020] ZAECBHC 32
7. Trope and Others v South African Reserve Bank 1993 (3) SA 264 (A)

Legislation Cited

1. Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (as amended)
2. Civil Proceedings Evidence Act 25 of 1965

Rules of Court Cited

No specific rules of court were cited in this judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The judgment in Oscar Mashengani v Road Accident Fund revolves around whether the RAF is liable for injuries sustained by the plaintiff, where the driver intentionally caused harm rather than acting negligently. The court determined that the RAF's liability emerges only in instances of negligence as prescribed by section 17 of the RAFA. The court ruled in favor of the Defendant, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish negligence.

Key Issues

Key legal issues addressed in the case include:

1. The interpretation of "accident" under section 17 of the RAFA.
2. Distinguishing between negligent behavior and intentional harm in the context of the RAF's liability.
3. The evidentiary burden on the plaintiff to establish a case of negligence.

Held

The court held that the RAF is absolved from liability on the grounds that the alleged collision was intentional. The court further noted that where intentional actions are involved, the RAF is not liable, thus leaving the plaintiff with only a common law claim against the individual who caused the injury.

THE FACTS

On New Year’s Day, 1 January 2019, the plaintiff Oscar Mashengani was involved in an altercation at the Fish Point Tavern, which escalated into a physical fight with another patron, Tendani Edwin Ramunenyiwa. After the fight was interrupted, Ramunenyiwa allegedly used his motor vehicle as a weapon, intentionally aiming it at Mashengani and colliding with him, causing bodily injuries. A criminal charge of attempted murder was filed against Ramunenyiwa, indicating the intentional nature of the act.

The events surrounding the incident were further complicated by inconsistent witness statements and the plaintiff's own changing narratives regarding the details of the collision. The plaintiff's claims regarding the accident evolved during the trial, ultimately resulting in the acknowledgment that RAF liability would not apply where intention, rather than negligence, was established.

THE ISSUES

The core legal question before the court concerned whether the RAF could be held liable under the RAFA for injuries stemming from an intentional act of the driver. Specifically, the issues included:

1. Could the plaintiff establish that negligence occurred, thus invoking the RAF's liability?
2. What constitutes an "accident" under section 17 of the RAFA?
3. How should the court interpret intentional acts in the context of the RAF’s liability?

ANALYSIS

The court undertook a comprehensive analysis of the statutory interpretations embedded in the RAFA and the nature of liability within the fund. The court emphasized that the RAF's obligations are specifically tied to instances of negligence as defined under the acting legislation. It examined the plaintiff's evidence, highlighting discrepancies between his testimonies and previously sworn statements. The court concluded that the alleged insured driver deliberately used the vehicle to cause harm, categorically demonstrating an intentional act rather than an accident stemming from negligence.

The court also underscored that intention, as a mental state, could not be conflated with negligence, rejecting arguments that sought to establish the RAF's liability based on non-negligent behavior.

REMEDY

The court ordered that the Road Accident Fund is absolved from the instance, meaning they are not liable for the injuries reported by the plaintiff. Moreover, there was no order as to costs, indicating that neither party was ordered to pay the other’s legal fees.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Key legal principles drawn from this judgment include:

1. Liability under the Road Accident Fund Act is contingent upon demonstrating negligence; intentional acts that result in harm do not trigger RAF liability.

2. The evidentiary burden falls on the plaintiff to establish a case of negligence through credible and consistent testimony and evidence.

3. A plaintiff cannot plead one case and subsequently present a different case during trial; any claims made must align with the particulars outlined in the pleadings.

4. The definition of "accident" excludes intentional actions, reinforcing the notion that intentional conduct does not constitute an accident as understood under the RAFA.

This case sets a significant precedent in clarifying the limits of the RAF's liability and the importance of precise pleading in claims brought against it.