IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
REPORTAB LE: NO (l)
(2)
(3)
OF INTERES T TO O TH ER JUDGES : NO
REV ISED.
15/9/2025
DA TE
In the matter between:
PATRICIA SESHANE
and
SIGNATURE
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
PIENAARAJ
JUDGMENT
CASE NO: 38807/20
APPLICANT /PLAINTIFF
RESPONDENTIDEFENDANT
INTRODUCTION
[1] This is a claim by the plaintiff against the Road Accident Fund for damages arising
from a motor vehicle collision which occurred on or about 15 July 2018 at or near
Ga-Motodi, Limpopo Province.
[2] On the 01st September 2020, the Applicant caused combined summons to be
served on the Respondent. On the 22 October 2022 the Respondent served its notice
of intention to defend. On the 24th October 2023, the Applicant served on the
Respondent notice of bar.
[3] On the 24 June 2022, the Respondent made an offer to the Applicant in respect of
General Damages, which offer was subsequently accepted by the Applicant.
[4] The issues for determination is quantum, specifically past and future loss of
earnings.
[5] 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 Rule of Court 38(2). The court granted the
application.
[6] After hearing the Plaintiff's Counsel's submissions regarding quantum, judgment was
reserved.
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
[7] According to paragraph 8 of the particulars of claim, it reads as follows: “The nature,
extent and sequelae of the injuries aforesaid are set out in the RAF1 claim form
annexed hereto and marked Annexure “PS1”. I refer to paragraph 22, "Medical Report,"
of the RAF 1 form, which confirms the following ICD-10 codes: T09 and S36.9.
However, there is no description of the injuries the claimant sustained in the accident.
[8] This code does not specify the type of injury (e.g., fracture, laceration), just that
there was an injury to the abdominal. Together, these codes suggest that the claimant
suffered internal injuries to the trunk/abdomen, but the exact nature and location of the
injuries were not specified in the medical report. This may indicate that the report is
incomplete or that further diagnostic details were not available when the RAF 1 form
was completed.
AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
[9] The Plaintiff served a notice of intention to amend the Particulars of Claim in terms
of Rule 28(1), by deleting paragraph 10 and 14, and replacing same with the following:
As a result of the aforesaid collision, the Plaintiff suffered damages as follows:
Estimated past loss of income R1 500 000,00
Estimated future loss of income R8 000 000,00
General Damages R2 000 000,00
Therefore, the Plaintiff only amended the amounts claimed for Loss of earnings and
General Damages.
RULE 18
[10] Rule 18 of the Uniform Rules of Court is headed “Rules relating to pleadings
generally.” The learned writer Harms in “Amler’s Precedents of Pleadings” ninth edition
describes the purpose of pleadings as follows:
“A party must define its cause of action and defence in the appropriate pleadings in the
Court of first instance to inform the other parties to the matter of the case they must
meet and of the relief sought against them in that Court. This is a fundamental principle
of fairness in the conduct of litigation, which promotes the parties’ rights to a fair hearing
guaranteed by Section 34 of the Constitution.”
QUANTUM
[11] Dr van den Bout (Orthopaedic Surgeon) assessed the Plaintiff on 26 November
2019. Dr van den Bout diagnosed the Plaintiff with a spinal cord injury, with
quadriplegia, a head injury, with frontal haematoma, an injury of the cervical spine, with
a C7/T1 fracture dislocation and fracture of the C6 spinous process. This report by Dr.
van den Bout is six years old, and there is no addendum. Therefore, it is outdated.
CONCLUSION
[12] This court cannot accept only the T09 and S36.9 codes for the injuries sustained
by the claimant as mentioned in the Particulars of Claim as a result of the motor vehicle
accident. Section 18 of the Uniform Rules clearly states that the material facts must be
set out in the particulars of claim, which has not been done in this matter.
ORDER
Accordingly, the following order is made:
1. The application for default judgment is refused.
2. The issue of loss of earnings is postponed sine die
3. No order as to costs
M PIENAAR
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' and/or
parties' representatives by email and by being uploaded to CaseLines. The date and
time for hand-down is deemed to be 15 September 2025
Heard on : 24 June 2025
De livered on : 15 September 2025
Appearance s:
On behalf of the Plaintiff
Instructed by
On behalf of the Defendant
: Adv A M Masombu ka
: Chau ke J Attorneys
No appearance
Link no: 4982175