REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case No: 31655/2022
Reportable: No
Of interest to other Judges: No
Revised: No
_____
SIGNATURE
Date: 17 March 2025
In the matter between:
OBED RINGANE Applicant (Plaintiff)
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Respondent (Defendant)
JUDGEMENT – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
___________________________________________________________________________
2
MOOKI J
1 The plaintiff seeks leave to appeal the order in which the court apportioned negligence
and applied particular contingencies in relation to his claim against the Road Accident
Fund.
2 The application is based on the following grounds, namely that the court erred:
2.1 In finding that the plaintiff was towing a trailer;
2.2 In finding that the plaintiff was not allowed to have a passenger;
2.3 In apportioning liability at 20%;
2.4 In applying a 25% contingency deduction in relation to past and future
pre-morbid earnings, and
2.5 In applying a 15% contingency deduction in relation to future post-morbid
earnings.
3 The court made its order on 23 April 2024. I asked counsel why the application was not
brought earlier. Counsel informed the court that the plaintiff had to obtain a transcript of
the proceedings.
4 There was also a notice in terms of Rule 49(6)(a), which was served on the Road
Accident Fund on 19 February 2025. The court enquired about this notice, given that
there was no decision on the application for leave to appeal. Counsel informed the court
that the notice was issued pre-maturely.
5 The plaintiff did not seek a written judgement before making his application. The record
shows that the matter came before court in the unopposed roll . The plaintiff gave
evidence. The court requested the plaintiff to furnish certain documents, with the plaintiff
3
later giving evidence on those documents. The court then determined liability, including
the bases thereof, from the Bench. The court also determined contingencies, having
debated with counsel. The court then made its order accordingly.
6 The plaintiff was injured whilst riding a motorcycle. The court accepts that there was no
evidence that the plaintiff was hauling a trailer. The evidence was that the plaintiff was
carrying a load at the back of the bike. The court held that a motorcycle was not intended
for conveying passengers or for hauling a trailer and that it was probable that the plaintiff
would otherwise have been able to control the motorcycle differently but for the
passenger and the trailer. The court erred in finding that the plaintiff was hauling a trailer.
I accept that another court may find differently on whether there is to be any
apportionment given the absence of evidence that the plaintiff was hauling a trailer.
7 Contigencies are a measure by the court to assess claims by a plaintiff. I am not
persuaded that the court erred in its determination of contingencies. The plaintiff’s
evidence on earnings was wholly unreliable. He told his experts that he earned
R9000,00 per month, and supplied payslips showing that amount. These payslips
formed part of the record.
8 The court requested the plaintiff to furnish copies of his bank statements. That was done.
The plaintiff informed the court that he was paid either on the last day of a month or on
the first day of a month. The bank statements by the plaintiff did not reflect payments in
the amount of R9000.00. The plaintiff, when the court drew this to his attention, gave
evidence that customers paid the business that employ ed the plaintiff in cash, and that is
how the plaintiff was paid. This evidence was at odds with the plaintiff’s case before the
court requested bank statements.
9 I agree that the court erred as stated above.
4
10 I make the following order:
(1) Leave to appeal is given to the Full Bench.
(2) Leave is given only in relation to the court having apportioned liability to the plaintiff.
(3) The costs of the application will be costs in the appeal.
O MOOKI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Appearance:
On behalf of the applicant A K Maluleka
Instructed by: Muchesa Attorneys
On behalf of the respondent (No appearance)
Heard: 4 March 2025
Decided: 17 March 2025