About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPPHC 173
|
|
Mlotshwa v Road Accident Fund (70967/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 173 (24 February 2025)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA)
Case No:
70967/2017
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
DATE:
24/02/2025
MAKHOBA J
In the matter between:
MLOTSHWA
CONNY ANNAH
PLAINTIFF
and
THE
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
MAKHOBA
J:
[1] The Plaintiff
instituted an action against the Defendant for damages suffered as a
result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle
accident that
occurred on the 17
th
May 2015.
[2]
On the date of trial, the Defendant was not represented and the
attempt to settle the matter did not yield any results. Counsel
for
the Plaintiff asked the court for default judgment in favour of the
Plaintiff. When
he
addressed
he
addressed
the court , the court asked him
to
address
it on liability by the Defendant.
[3]
In order to prove liability (merits) the Plaintiff testified. In her
testimony She testified that when the accident
occurred
she
occurred
she
was asleep in the motor vehicle. She later discovered
that
she
that
she
was admitted at Jane Furse hospital. She was informed by the
staff
members
at
members
at
the hospital that she was involved in a motor vehicle accident. This
complete evidence
of
the
of
the Plaintiff on the merits and the Plaintiff closed her case.
[4] Counsel for the
Plaintiff requested to submit the heads of argument which same was
filed on the 21
st
February 2025. In his heads of argument
Counsel argued that the Plaintiff succeeded in proving that the
Defendant was one percent
negligent and liable for the Plaintiff’s
proven damages.
[5] The issue in this
matter is whether the Defendant is liable for the Plaintiff’s
damages.
[6] In our law, the
Plaintiff must prove only one percent on the Defendant’s
negligence. In other words, it is enough to hold
the Defendant liable
if it is proven that the Defendant was one percent negligent.
[7] It is trite that onus
rests on the Plaintiff to prove her case on a balance of
probabilities. See
Pillay v Krishna
1946 SA 946
. Thus, the
duty is on the Plaintiff to prove the one percent negligence by the
Defendant’s insured driver.
[8] The only witness for
the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff herself. In her testimony she
testified that she did not see how the accident
occurred and that she
only found herself in hospital.
[9] Furthermore the
Plaintiff reiterate in her affidavit what she told the court under
oath.
[10]
In the absence of evidence of how the accident occurred, the court
is
unable to say that the Defendant is liable for damages suffered by
the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff in my view failed to prove on
balance of
probabilities that the Defendant is liable for her claim of damages
against the Defendant.
cannot
confirm
that
the Defendant is liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiff.
[11]
I therefore make the following order:
11.
1. The Plaintiff’s claim is
dismissed;
11.2.
I make no order as to costs.
MAKHOBA
Judge
of the High Court
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
Delivered:
This judgment was handed down
electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal
representatives by e-mail. The date
and time for hand-down is
deemed to be …..on the ………………………………
2025.
APPERANCES
Counsel
for plaintiff:
Adv N
Nemukula
nkaneonemukula@gmail.com
Attorneys
for plaintiff:
Nefuri
Attorneys
Ca3@nefuri-attorneys.co.za
Attorneys
for defendants/respondents:
State
Attorney
(unknown)