REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
hire Se,
ef gtaiy FA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NUMBER: 76402/2019
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/AIQ) .
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/QQ)
(3) REVISED: YES/K{Q>
DATE SIGNATURE H
In the matters between: -
SICAVILLE JOSE PLAINTIFF
And
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT
The matter was heard in open court and the judgment was prepared and authored by the judge
whose name is reflected herein and was 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. The date of handing-down is deemed to be I July 2025
JUDGMENT
KEKANA, AJ
INTRODUCTION
[1] This is a claim against the Road Accident Fund for damages arising from a motor vehicle
collision which occurred on or about 11 November 2018 at Orlando East, Gauteng Province.
[2] The issues for determination are (a) whether the defendant is liable for the plaintiff’s damages;
and (b) if liability is established, the quantification of the plaintiff’s claim in respect of general
damages and loss of earnings and/or loss of earning capacity. The plaintiff seeks an order directing
the defendant to compensate him for 100% of his proven damages. The matter is defended.
[3] The defendant did not admit the RAF 4 serious injury assessment of the plaintiff; consequently,
the issue of General Damages ought to be postponed sine die,
RULE 38(2) APPLICATION
[4] The Plaintiff brought an application that the evidence relating to the medico-legal reports
of the medical experts and the actuarial report of the Actuary, be allowed by affidavit in terms
of the provisions of Uniform Rules of Court 38(2). The court granted the application.
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE
[5] The plaintiff testified that on or about 11 November 2018, at approximately 06h20, he was
standing at the side of the road in Orlando East, Gauteng Province, in the company of
Emmanuel Khoza. A white Nissan motor vehicle passed by them and then suddenly reversed
at high speed, striking the plaintiff on his left side. The plaintiff did not observe the vehicle
reversing and has not been able to identify the insured vehicle or its driver.
L6] The plainuff sustained a left segmental femur fracture (femur neck and femur shafi). He was
treated as follows: (a) X-rays and scans were done; (b) Skin traction of the left leg; (c) theatre for
nailing of the left femur; (d) physiotherapy and he was provided with crutches, which he used for
several months. Upon follow-up at the Chris Hani Baragwanath hospital, the sutures were removed
and he underwent physiotherapy.
[7] The plaintiff’s complaints are recorded as follows: He feels self-conscious about the scars
sustained due to the accident, Pain over the left hip and thigh, especially when standing long time,
when walking far, when handling heavy objects and when it is cold. He also struggles to stand for
long and to walk far, and he is unable to jog and to jump due to the left leg injury sustained. He
sometimes limps because of the pain. He has occasional flashbacks and nightmares of the accident.
He gets nervous when walking next to the road and always walks far away from the road. He feels
sad and frustrated due to his limitations. .
LAW
[8] It is trite that the plaintiff bears the onus to prove negligence on the part of the defendant. Once
a prima facie case is established, the defendant must rebut the inference of negligence or face an
adverse finding.
[9] In assessing the issue of negligence, the court in Ntsala v Mutual & Federal Insurance Co Ltd
1996 (2) SA 184 (T) at 190 held that: