REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: 437 /2015
(1) R EP O RT A BLE: NO
(2) O F INTE R EST TO O TH ER JUDG ES : NO
(3) R EVISED : NO
19 May 2025
DATE SIGN ATURE
In the matter between:
ADOLPHAS CYRIL BONGANI PARKIES
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
DOMINGO,AJ
Introduction
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff
Defendant
(1] This is action instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant as a result of injuries
sustained in a motor vehicle collision that occurred on 7 August 2011 . The plaintiff
w as driving a motor vehicle w hen the insured driver collided into him.

2

[2] The merits (80% in favour of the plaintiff), past medical expenses, future medical
expenses and loss of earnings were resolved previously. This matter was to
proceed on the issue of general damages.
[3] At the time of the proceedings, the defendant was not present, and the
proceedings went ahead in the absence of the defendant.
[4] Counsel for the plaintiff requested that all evidence (expert reports and
confirmatory affidavits) be accepted by this court in terms of Rule 38(2) of the
Uniform Court Rules. I ruled that all the evidence would be accepted in terms of
Rule 38(2).
Issues
[5] The principle issue to be determined in this matter was whether, by way of
concessions made at a pre-trial conference on 16 November 2018, the defendant
should be deemed to have accepted the seriousness of injuries sustained by the
plaintiff as contemplated in terms of section 17(1) of the Road Accident Act 56 of
1996 (RAF Act).
[6] Section 17(1) of the RAF Act states:
”Provided that the obligation of the Fund to compensate a third party for non -pecuniary
loss shall be limited to compensations for serious injuries..”
[7] Plaintiff’s counsel averred that the defendant ha d previously made concessions
at a pre -trial conference on 16 November 2018 which amounted to an
acceptance of the issue of seriousness of the plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff’s counsel
also directed the court to the judgment of Davis J in Adv Sayed N.O v Road
Accident Fund1 where the court dealt with a similar issue.
The pre-trial conference
[8] A pre -trial conference was held on 16 November 2018 between the parties’
representatives.

1 (36492/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1325 (18 December 2024).

3

[9] The relevant questions and answers relied on by the plaintiff as exchanged at
this pre -trial conference as per the pre -trial conference minutes , were the
following:
“Given that the defendant has no counterpart for him, is the defendant prepared to admit
the correctness of the content of the reports (RAF4 included) of the Independent
Medical Examiner, Dr TJ Enslin? If not, then the defendant is requested to indicate:
4.1 Which factual allegations it does not admit and the reasons therefore.
4.2 What the defendant’s contentions are in respect of the aforesaid factual
allegations.
4.3 Which of the opinions expressed, it does not admit and the reasons
therefore.
4.4 What the defendant’s contentions are in respect of the aforesaid
opinions.
ANSWER: Admitted, agree in so far as it accords with the hospital
records.
[10] The same set of questions as set out above were repeated in regard to the Plastic
and Reconstruction Surge on, Dr JPM Pienaar ; Neurosurgeon, Dr D de Klerk ;
Opthalmologist, Dr L van der Merwe; Occupational Therapist, Bester Putter (Ms
M Peach); Clinical Psychologist, Dr K Truter ; Maxillo Facial & Oral Surgeon, D
HP Ehlers ; Industrial Psychologist, Mr K Prinsloo and the Actuary, Mr G
Whittaker.
[11] In response to the questions asked in respect of each of the seven medical
experts and actuary noted above the defendant’s representative answered: “See
para 4”. Paragraph 4’s answer, as above stated, “Admitted, agree in so far as it
accords with the hospital records”
[12] In addition, I note the following relevant questions and answers as exchanged at
the pre-trial conference:
“In addition to the aforesaid, the defendant is requested to make the following
admissions in order to curtail the proceedings:

4

13.1 Does the defendant admit that the plaintiff has suffered the injuries
set out in the respective medico-legal reports?
ANSWER: Not at this stage
13.2 Does the defendant admit that the plaintiff has received the treatment
set out in the various medico -legal reports, and that it is accident
related?
ANSWER: Not at this stage
13.3 Does the defendant admit the sequelae suffered as a result of the
injuries sustained by the plaintiff as recorded in the respective medico-
legal reports filed on his behalf?
ANSWER: Not at this stage
13.5 Does the defendant agree that the expertise of the plaintiff’s expert
witnesses are agreed on and that it will not have to be proved?
ANSWER: Admitted
In addition, the plaintiff suggested that the parties discuss the following:
14.3 Plaintiff’s general damages.
ANSWER: subject to instruction
[13] The defendant to date has not provided the court with any expert reports which
are contrary to those provided by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s contentions
[14] Reliant on the general principles regarding admissions in civil proceedings 2,
plaintiff’s counsel averred that the fact that the defendant answered “admitted” to
all the questions related to the expert reports in the pre -trial conference
amounted to an admission that the plaintiff was entitled to claim for general

2 Section 15 of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act 25 of 1965: “It shall not be necessary for any
party in any civil proceedings to prove nor shall it be competent for any such part to disprove any
fact admitted on record of such proceedings.”

5

damages. In other words, the defendant had admitted to the seriousness of the
plaintiff’s injuries.
[15] The plaintiff also made reference to Rule 37(4)(a) of the Uniform Court Rules
which expressly makes provision for parties to, by way of admissions, expedite,
the trial and limit the issues before court.
[16] Plaintiff’s counsel also pointed out that in the Adv Sayed3 case the court dealt
with an admission where the RAF had in the pre-trial conference requested the
defendant to indicate in writing specifically which findings in the plaintiff’s reports
it disputed. The RAF had to give such indication by a specific date. The parties
agreed in the pre-trial conference that if the RAF failed to do so within the agreed
time limit the factual content, factual findings, conclusions reached, and opinions
expressed by the plaintiff’s experts shall be agr eed to be common cause.
Plaintiff’s counsel averred that this matter is distinguishable from the Adv Sayed4
case in that in casu the defendant had “admitted” to the correctness of the expert
reports in the pre -trial conference. The admission was made in so far as the
expert reports accord with the hospital records. Thus, the plaintiff’s counsel
submitted that this court must conclude as was concluded in the Adv Sayed5
case:
“It is a situation where the RAF itself has, by the exercise of a deliberate election, chosen
to accept the conclusion of the plaintiff’s expert regarding the seriousness of the minor’s
injuries. It must be accepted that, before exercising this election, the RAF must have
satisfied itself as to the correctness of that conclusion.”
Legal Framework
[17] In the Adv Sayed6 case a detailed approach on the requirements for a plaintiff to
qualify to claim general damages is set out as follows by Davis J:

3 Supra note 1 at para 11, 32 and 34.
4 Supra
5 Supra at para 34.
6 Supra at paras 19-26.

6

“It is this: in terms of the proviso to section 17(1), the RAF shall only be liable to
compensate a plaintiff for general damages (non -pecuniary loss) if the seriousness of
such a plaintiff’s injuries has been assessed as contemplated in section 17(1A).
Such assessment, for which the qualifying threshold is 30% WPI, shall be based on a
prescribed method and shall be carried out by a medical practitioner7 registered as such
under the Health Professions Act8.
The “method” of assessment has been prescribed in Regulation 3 of the Road Accident
Fund Regulations promulgated on 21 July 20099
A plaintiff who has undergone such an assessment in the prescribed method, shall
obtain a serious injury assessment report from the medical practitioner who has
performed the assessment.10
Should the RAF not be satisfied that the injury has been correctly assessed, it may either
reject the plaintiff’s serious injury assessment 11or direct the plaintiff to submit him or
herself to assessment by a medical practitioner designated by the RAF. 12 Should there
still be disputes thereafter as to the seriousness of the injuries, the issue shall be dealt
with by an appeal tribunal appointed by the HPCSA after due exchange of notices as
provided for in the Regulations.13
It is also trite that the above procedures are peremptory and that a court has no power
to determine the seriousness of the injuries.14
Evaluation and discussion
[18] The crux of the question as in the Adv Sayed15 case is, can the RAF be deemed
to have been ‘satisfied’ as to the seriousness of the plaintiff’s injuries in this case
as a result of the admission made at the pre-trial conference?

7 Section 17(1A)(a) and (b).
8 56 of 1974.
9 Regulation 3. Assessment of serious injury in terms of section 17(1A).
10 Reg 3(3)(a).
11 Reg 3(3)(d)(i).
12 Reg 3(3)(d)(ii).
13 Reg 3(4) -3(13).
14 See Duma v Road Accident Fund 2013 (6) SA 9 (SCA); RAF v Lebeko 2012 JDR 2176 (SCA)
[2012] ZASCA 159 and Kobo M and Another v RAF 2023 (3) SA 125 (GP).

[2012] ZASCA 159 and Kobo M and Another v RAF 2023 (3) SA 125 (GP).
15 Supra note 1 at para 27.

7

[19] The facts of admission by the defendant in this case is clearly distinguishable
and materially different from the facts in the Adv Sayed16 case. In the present
instance the defendant admitted in the pre -trial conference minutes to the
correctness of the expert report in so far it accords with the hospital records .
However, in interpreting this admission together with the admissions in
paragraph 13 and 14.3 of the pre -trial minutes, I am not convinced that the
defendant admitted to the seriousness of the plaintiff’s injuries.
[20] The defendant in paragraph 13.1 of the pre-trial minutes, when asked “does the
defendant admit that the plaintiff has suffered the injuries set out in the respective
medico-legal reports?; the defendant answers “not at this stage” . Furthermore,
in paragraph 14.3 where the plaintiff suggested the parties discuss, the plaintiff’s
general damages ; the defendant’s answer is “subject to instruction.” These
paragraphs in my opinion clearly indicate that there was a no admission by the
defendant to seriousness of the plaintiff’s injuries.
[21] In my view, the admission of the expert reports by the defendant is an admission
of the content of the “reports’ themselves as they align with the hospital records
and not admission per se of the “ seriousness of the injuries” as required by the
legislative framework. Thus, the “admission” of the defendant in regard to the
expert reports may be open to interpretation, however, in my view it has to be
read in conjunction with the rest of the admissions made by the defendant in the
pre-trial conference minutes.
[22] In the premises, I am of the view the defendant cannot be deemed to have been
satisfied as to the seriousness of the plaintiff’s injuries in this case as a result of
the admissions made at the pre-trial conference.
Order
[23] In the circumstances, I hereby make the following order:
23.1 The plaintiff is ordered to ob tain a serious injury
assessment report from the Health Profession s

assessment report from the Health Profession s
Council of South Africa (HPCSA) which sets out the

16 Supra.

nature of the seriousness of the injuries of the
plaintiff as a result of the motor vehicle collision
which occurred on 7 August 2011.
23.2 The claim for general damages is postponed sine
die.
W DOMINGO
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PRETORIA
Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
Caselines. This matter was heard in open court on the 21 February 2025. The date
for hand down is deemed to be 19 May 2025.
APPEARANCES
For the Plaintiff:
For the defendant:
ADVOCATE M RABANEY instructed by MACROBERT
ATTORNEYS , MS A GRIESEL
NO APPEARANCE
8

9