SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy



IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)

JUDGMENT

Reportable/Not Reportable
Case no: 5469/2020

In the matter between:

MARIUS CEYSTER PLAINTIFF

and

THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT

Neutral citation: Marius Ceyster v Road Accident Fund (Case no 5469/2020)
[2020] ZAWCHC … (110825)
Coram: MTHIMUNYE AJ
Heard: 31 July 2025
Delivered: 11 August 2025
Summary: Claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. Only issue of
liability to be determined.

ORDER


1. The defendant is liable for 100% of the plaintiff’s proven damages
regarding the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19 February 2019 at
Station Road, Tulbagh.

2. The trial in respect of quantum is postponed sine die.

3. The defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff’s party -and-party costs on the
High Court S cale C, as taxed or agreed by the parties, such costs to
include the costs occasioned on 29 April 2025.

JUDGMENT


Mthimunye AJ:

[1] This is a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident that
occurred on 16 February 2019 at or near Station Road, Tulbagh. The plaintiff
a driver of a motor vehicle bearing registration number C[...] at the time was
involved in a collision with a motor vehicle of which the identity of the owner
and driver was unknown.

[2] The plaintiff suffered injuries to his head, ri ght arm and elbow. He claimed
damages in the amount of R4,253,082 ,80. The defendant’s plea amounted to
a bare denial, claiming that the accident was caused partly by the negligence
of the plaintiff. At the start of the trial the defendant admitted that it is not in
dispute that an accident did occur. The only issue for determination was
liability.

Summary of the Evidence

[3] The plaintiff testified that on 16 February 2019 he was travelling with his
employers Isizu bakkie from Remhoogte farm with his colleag ue Wesley. He
was on his way to fetch his girlfriend and their child from Uitvlugt farm. While
driving in the left lane on Wintershoek road, he was confronted by an
oncoming motor vehicle who had on his bright headlights. The oncoming
vehicle was straddling the centre white line. During cross -examination he
explained that the road was narrow and that the oncoming vehicle’s one
wheel was in his lane while the other wheel was in the right lane. He further
testified that upon realising that there was a problem , he immediately took
evasive action to avoid a collision . While swerving to the left to avoid the
collision he felt an impact to the right rear of his motor vehicle, caus ing his
vehicle to spin out of control, overturning, whereafter he was unconscious.

[4] The next witness was Mr Wesley Lambert. He testified that he was a
passenger in the motor vehicle that wa s driven by the plaintiff on the day of
the incident. He confirms that the accident took place on Wintershoek road .
Further that he and the plaintiff were on their way to Uitvlugt farm to fetch their
girlfriends. He further testified that as they were comi ng around a bend the
saw an oncoming motor vehicle with its bright headlights on approaching their
motor vehicle. The plaintiff then tried to avoid the oncoming vehicle, however
the oncoming vehicle hit them on the right back side of their motor vehicle,
resulting in their motor vehicle tilting. He testified that he could not see where
exactly the oncoming motor vehicle was on the road as he was busy on the
phone, talking to his girlfriend at that time.

[5] The defendant led no witnesses.

Issues for determination

[6] The issue to be determined is whether the plaintiff on a balance of
probabilities has proved his claim in delict. I order for me to make such

probabilities has proved his claim in delict. I order for me to make such
determination I will first turn to deal with the relevant legal principles
applicable.

Legal Framework

[7] The provisions of section 17(1) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
(‘the RAF Act’) stipulate that:

[8] ‘The Fund or an agent shall-

(a) …
(b) …
be obliged to compensate any person (the third party) for any loss or
damage which the third party has suffered as a result of any bodily
injury to himself or herself or the death of or any bodily injury to any
other person, caused by or arising from the driving of a motor vehicle
by any person at any place within the Republic, if the injury or death is
due to the negligence or other wrongful act of the driver or of the owner
of the motor vehicle or of his or her employee in the performance of the
employee’s duties as employee…’

[9] In Septoo v The Road Accident Fund 2017 JDR 1913 (SCA), the Supreme
Court of Appeal stated that a claimant must prove all the elements of a delict in order
for it to succeed with its claim in terms of the RAF Act.

[10] The plaintiff has to prove the following five elements to succeed with his claim;
(a) that the defendant active ly did something, in this matter it is not disputed that
an accident occurred; (b) wrongfulness (the legal duty to avoid causing harm) ; (c)
fault (negligence); (d) causation and (e) that he suffered injuries (damages). If any
single element is not established, that is the end of the plaintiff’s claim.

Discussion

[11]0 Both the plaintiff and Mr Lambert’s testimonies were cogent and satisfactorily.
From their evidence it is evident that at some point in time they were travelling
together on Winterhoek Road. They were confronted by an oncoming motor vehicle
that had its bright head lights on. The plaintiff intimated that he saw the oncoming

motor vehicle straddl ing the centre white line and realised there was a problem and
took evasive action to avoid an accident. Unfortunately, the oncoming vehicle hit his
motor vehicle on the back right side causing him to lose control of his motor vehicle.
The plaintiff was ad mittedly rendered unconscious by the collision. The plaintiff’s
version was undisputed and in so far as it is materially relevant corroborated by Mr
Lambert. Both these witnesses were credible and reliable witnesses.

[12] The defendant never suggested or proposed to any witnesses during cross -
examination that the collision did not occur in the manner which the witnesses had
testified. It is trite law, that where the facts are indicative of negligence on the part of
a driver, unless the driver comes to testify to refute the facts or furnish an
explanation why he was on the incorrect side of the road, the facts speak for itself
(res ipsa loquitor). Thus, the evidence of the plaintiff stands uncontested. I therefore
accept the plaintiff’s version that there was an oncoming motor vehicle which partly
travelled on the incorrect side of the road and that as a result of the plaintiff taking
evasive action the unknown motor vehicle impacted with the plaintiff’s motor vehicle,
causing the collision and the plaintiff sustaining injuries.

[13] During the proceedings, counsel for the defendant suggested that by the
plaintiff being unable to recall at what speed he was driving, he contributed to the
negligence of the unknown driver. In the absence of a version by the insured driver
the issue of contributory negligence must be determined on the version of the
plaintiff. There are further no circumstances based on the evidence before court
from which an inference can be drawn that there was causal neglige nce on the part
of the plaintiff. The only inference to be drawn by this court is that the insured driver
was solely negligent for the accident.

Conclusion

was solely negligent for the accident.

Conclusion

[14] On a proper evaluation of the evidence in its totality, the court is satisfied that
the collision was occasioned by the sole negligence of the unidentified insured driver
and that there is no evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

Costs

[15] The only issue remaining is that of costs. There is no reason why the gen eral
rule should not apply. The plaintiff being successful is thus entitled to his costs.

[16] The following order is made:

1. The defendant is liable for 100% of the plaintiff’s proven damages
regarding the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19 February 2019 at
Station Road, Tulbagh.

2. The trial in respect of quantum is postponed sine die.

4. The defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff’s party -and-party costs on the
High Court Scale C, as taxed or agreed by the parties, such costs to
include the costs occasioned on 29 April 2025.


_____________________________
S MTHIMUNYE
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT


Appearances:

Counsel for Plaintiff : Adv H G McLachlan
(advmac@capebar.co.za)

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Ms N K Haupt
(nicola@krugercolaw.co.za)

Counsel for Defendant: Ms Claireese Thomas of State Attorney
(claireese@raf.co.za)