i'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
MPUMALANGA DIVISION, MBOMBELA
CASE NO: 3100/2022
(1) RE POR TABLE:NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES : NO
REV ISED: YES/NO
In the matter between:
03/09/2025
DATE
DELISILE PRUDENCE KUBAYI
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties and/or
parties' representatives by email. Th~ ;date and time for hand-down is deemed to be
03 September 2025 at 10:00.
JUDGMENT
i
,1,
'
'
TshetloAJ
[1] On 21 November 2021 (at approximately 18h15), Ms Delisile Prudance Kubayi
("the plaintiff") was involved in a motor vehicle collision. It is common cause between
the parties that the accident occurred.
[2] The issue before this court is the determination of merits only, including whether
or not there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The question of
quantum does not arise for determination.
[3] In summary, the plaintiff testified that:
3.1 On 21 November 2021, at or around 18h15, together with her two children, she
was driving (at approximately 55km/h) along Mahushu road (a tarred single carriage
way).
3.2
3.3
The road conditions were good. It was dusk, but it was still fairly visible.
Suddenly, a Jehicle that was tr~velling extremely fast overtook the vehicle she
was driving on the left-hand side of the road (i.e. emergency lane).
3.4 The speeding vehicle then abruptly swerved right and collided with the left front
of her vehicle, as a result of which she lost control and fell into a ditch on the other
side of the road.
3.5 She did not see the vehicle approaching, and the accident occurred extremely
fast. She also did not take any evasive measures. She was simply not in a position to
do so.
3.6 She has been driving regularly for 20 years and has never been involved in a
car accident.
[4] There was limited cross-examination (out of which nothing of consequence
arose) and no re-examination. The plaintiff closed its case, and the defendant elected
not to lead any evidence.
[5] The plaintiff's counsel argued that the plaintiff could not have taken any evasive
measures and was not at fault, and she did not see the speeding vehicle. Further, the
2
. '
~; :
RAF had not led any evidence to the contrary. As a result, it was argued that the merits
should be determined 100% in favour of the plaintiff.
[6] The defendant argued that the plaintiff could have done something to avoid the
accident (given that it was a clear evening) and that the plaintiff's version was not
plausible. Accordingly, the RAF argued that there should be an apportionment of 80/20
because the plaintiff was , according to it, contributorily negligent.
[7] The defendant has proved no fault on the part of the plaintiff. I therefore
disagree that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent or that there is any basis laid for
any apportionment.
[8] Accordingly, the following order is made :
1 The defendant is 100% liable for the plaintiff's proven damages.
2 The defendant is liable for the plaintiff's costs on Scale B.
TSHETLOAJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
MPUMALANGA DIVISION, MBOMBELA
3
Appearances
For the plaintiff:
For the respondent:
Date heard:
Judgement Delivered:
Adv. Mabaso
QQ Mkhatshwa Inc.
Mbombela
Ms T Malope
Office of the State Attorney
Mbombela
18 March 2025
3 September 2025
4