IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
MPUMALANGA DIVISION, MBOMBELA
CASE NO: 614/2019
(1) REPORTAB LE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES : NO
(3) REVISED : YES /NO
l ~, ,lv;ab
DATE
In the matter between:
SANDISILE CLEOPATRA KHOZA APPLICANT
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND RESPONDENT
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties and/or
parties' representatives by email. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be
18 September 2025 at 10:00.
JUDGMENT
Mangena AJ
' ~ I
[1] The plaintiff is Ms Sandisile C ~eopatra Khoza, an adult female person who
instituted legal proceedings for payme ~t of damages against the Road Accident Fund
("the RAF/ the Fund").
[2] The claim arises out of the following brief facts: On 30 September 2018, the
plaintiff was a passenger in a motor vehicle which collided with another motor vehicle.
She sustained soft injuries to the head, according to the medical records on file. She
lodged a claim with the RAF on 17 October 2018 by submitting lodgement documents,
including the RAF 1 claim form, at the Mbombela offices. From the documents in the
court file, it appears that the RAF 1 claim form was completed by a medical practitioner
on 7 February 2019. The summons was issued by the Registrar on 22 February 2019
and served at the RAF Mbombela office on 11 March 2019.
I
[3] The Road Accident Fund Act 5~ of 1996 ("the RAF Act") requires the Fund to
object to the validity of the claim within 60 days of lodgement, failing which it is deemed
I
to be valid in all respects. Section 24(6) of the RAF Act affords the Fund a period of
120 days from the date of lodgement to investigate the claim and prohibits the claimant
from issuing summons prior to the expiry of that period. This is to afford the Fund the
opportunity to investigate the claim and assess the merits. This did not happen in this
case, as the timelines sketched above show .
[4] The above notwithstanding, the merits were settled, and so was the general
damages component of the quantum . There is nothing in the file confirming this aspect.
I will, however, accept the correctness of the statement as presented by both counsel
and confine myself to the issue I am rjquired to determine. I, however, need to state
that it is difficult for me to shed the tholght that this claim was probably settled without
the merits being investigated. I
[5] The Fund was unduly pressured and deprived of a statutorily prescribed
[5] The Fund was unduly pressured and deprived of a statutorily prescribed
opportunity to investigate the claim. It iJ a notorious fact that the RAF and its personnel
are not coping with the volume of claims they receive. The least members of the
profession could do is to comply with the law and ensure that they protect the integrity
of their profession by doing the right thing. Regrettably, this is not what happened in
2
' '
I I
this case. One only hopes that this is an isolated incident and not reflective of the
conduct of the legal practitioners. Indeed, one swallow does not make summer.
[6] When the matter came for trial ~n 25 August 2025, counsel informed me that
the only issue in dispute 1s past and future loss of earnings. The basis for the
disagreement was the extent of the head injury and its effect on the earning capacity
of the plaintiff. In its plea, the defendant has indeed disputed that the plaintiff suffered
any loss of earnings.
[7] The plaintiff filed five expert reports in support of her claim for future loss of
earnings. The reports were prepared by a neurosurgeon, a neuropsychologist, an
occupational therapist, an industrial psychologist and an actuary. By consent between
the parties, the actuarial report was admitted into evidence in terms of Rule 38(2) of
the Uniform Rules of Court.
[8] The plaintiff was the first witness to testify in support of her claim. She testified
that at the time of the accident, she 1as an intern at M S Mabuya Civil Laboratory
together with four other people. She was able to perform her duties and complete her
allocated tasks with ease and to the satisfaction of her "employer". After the accident,
she was not able to complete her allocated tasks due to severe headaches. She also
testified that she would often forget some of the tasks, and this affected her
performance. She was asked to stay at home. She subsequently secured another
internship with the Department of Education, where she was assisting in the matric
examination section. Once again, she could not cope due to the unbearable
headaches and memory loss she was experiencing.
[9] She was cross-examined on various aspects of her internship and her
qualifications. She stood firm that her continuous headaches are a result of the
accident, and that they have made it difficult for her to sustain the work opportunities
she was able to secure as an intern.
she was able to secure as an intern.
[1 O] The plaintiffs evidence was corr~borated by Ms Nqobile Ntuli, who testified that
she was her supervisor at M S Mabuya Civil Laboratory. She stated that she was a
hard-working intern who stood a chance of being appointed by the company. Her
3
performance started to deteriorate after the accident as she became forgetful and
often failed to complete her allocated tasks. She was laid off due to a drop in her
performance, which, by all accounts, came after the accident. When cross-examined,
Ms Ntuli stated that she does not know if Ms Khosa was paid for her services and if
she was who was paying her, and how much.
[11] Mr Mhlanga testified that he is a neuropsychologist. He consulted with the
plaintiff and perused the medical records of the plaintiff from her hospital file. He was
also given a copy of the report prepared by the neurosurgeon. Based on his
knowledge, skill and experience, the continuous and severe headaches the plaintiff is
experiencing are consistent with the nature of the injuries sustained during the
accident. The report by the neurosurgeon said that she had a "mild concussive brain
injury". In his experience, the hospital nurses seldom pick up the severity of the injuries
to the head and will record what they are able to see. The same applies to ambulance
personnel who seldom keep notes on the treatment administered to patients whilst
being transported to the hospital. He remained firm in his opinion that the head injury
was the cause of the headaches and poor memory the plaintiff is experiencing.
[12) The two other witnesses who testified for the plaintiff were Ms Nkabinde, the
occupational therapist and Ms Aimee Esterhuyzen. Both of them indicated that the
plaintiff deserves to be compensated for the financial loss she suffered and will suffer
as a result of the effect of the accident on her earning capacity. They were cross
examined on their reports. Significantly, none of the experts had any document in their
possession confirming that Ms Khosa was engaged as a paid intern or a volunteer.
[13) The parties submitted written closing arguments, and I have given them due
consideration in the preparation of this judgment.
[14] Ms Tsebane submitted on behalf of the defendant that I should dismiss the claim
[14] Ms Tsebane submitted on behalf of the defendant that I should dismiss the claim
for loss of past and future earnings. She based her submissions on the fact that the
plaintiff did not call the neurosurgeon. This cannot be a reason for the dismissal of a
claim. The defendant had in her posse~sion a copy of the report by the neurosurgeon.
She knew that the plaintiff was relying bn it for the purpose of proving her claim. If the
report contained any information relevJnt to the defence, there was nothing precluding
4
I
'• t
t
the defendant from calling her to come and testify. The plaintiff saw no need to call
her, and in my view, no negative inference should be drawn from this. All the other
experts who testified based their reports on her report.
[15] With the above said, I, however, agree with Ms Tsebane regarding the plaintiff's
failure to satisfy the onus required of her. During the cross-examination, the plaintiff
was asked questions regarding the payments she received as an intern. The answers
she gave were not satisfactory in relati~n to how much she was paid. She has also not
I
presented evidence of remuneration from any of the institutions she served during her
internship. None of the experts who consulted with her obtained copies of her bank
statements or confirmation of payment from the institutions where she served her
internship.
[16] The last internship Ms Khosa secured was with the City of Mbombela ,
according to the report by the industrial psychologist. In the telephone consultation
held on 5 August 2025, Ms Khosa told the industrial psychologist that she had been
employed at the municipality for 5-6 months and was asked to leave due to poor work
performance. She told her that she was earning R7500.00. Once again, it is unclear
whether she was paid by the municipality or the Seta, or whether she was volunteering.
This is significant wheri one has regard to the fact that when she was engaged by the
municipality, she had already instituted her claim against the RAF for R5 800 000.00.
[17] The plaintiff's attorneys would have kept records of her payments and obtained
letters from the institutions regarding the basis for her termination of engagement as
an intern. They would also have advised her to provide copies of her bank statements
as proof of the loss she suffered as a result of the accident. I therefore doubt that she
ever worked as a paid intern at any of these institutions. I say so because the figures
ever worked as a paid intern at any of these institutions. I say so because the figures
the actuary used in her calculations were assumed and not based on any tangible and
credible evidence.
[18] The Mbombela municipality and the Department of Education are government
institutions that are, in law, required to keep records of the people they engage either
as temporary or permanent employees. The plaintiff knew the people she was
reporting to in these institutions, and it would not have been difficult for her to get them
5
to confirm her terms of engagement in writing and supported by documentary
evidence. The plaintiff could have also furnished her attorneys with her bank statement
for the period she was engaged as an intern to prove that she was paid.
[19] The plaintiff bore the onus to prove that she sustained severe injuries which
negatively affected her performance at work, and as a result, she lost her income and
will continue to do so in the future.
[20] On the totality of her evidence I am not satisfied that she met the requisite
threshold of a balance of probabilities. Her evidence was unsatisfactory in material
respects when it came to the effect of the accident on her earning capacity. One would
have expected her to obtain letters confirming the terms of her engagement and the
reasons why she was laid off. As already indicated, these institutions are still in
existence, and there has not been any credible reason advanced as to why the
information could not be obtained.
[21] In the circumstances, the claim for past and future loss of earnings does not
succeed.
[22] Consequently, it is ordered as follows:
1. The claim for past and future loss of earnings is dismissed.
2. Each party shall pay its own costs.
~ MANGENAAJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
MPUMALANGA DIVISION, MBOMBELA
6
f' I
Appearances
For the plaintiff: Adv. Mabaso
Instructed by: QQ Mkhatshwa Inc.
For the respondent: Ms . Man ini Tsebane
State Attorney (Mbombela )
Date Heard: 25 August 2025
Judgment Delivered: 18 September 2025
7