2
Introduction
1. This is an action against the Road Accident Fund (hereinafter referred to as RAF)
due to injuries sustained by the plaintiff, as a result of an accident which occurred
on 23 December 2018, along Alfred Nzo Street, Alexandra, Johannesburg,
2. The matter was allocated to the default trial court on 12 August 2025, in the virtual
court for the determination of liability, future medical expenses, as well as past
and future loss of earnings
3. The plaintiff sustained the following injuries, ankylosis of the right elbow,
amputation of the second metacarpal (index finger) of the right hand, contracture
MP joints of the middle, ring and small fingers of the right hand, constructure PIP
joints of the middle and ring fingers of the right hand, amputation of the DIP joints
of the middle and ring fingers of the right hand, severe muscle atrophy of the ring
fingers of the right hand, severe muscle atrophy of the right upper limb. Multiple
post-surgical and post-traumatic scars, a brachial artery and degloving injury of the
right upper limb with fixed flexion deformity of the right elbow and ankylosis of the
right wrist, with amputation of the thumb and index finger.
4. Dr A.J. Dybala, orthopaedic surgeon, who compiled the RAF 4 serious injury
assessment, the plaintiff has a WPI of 64% and qualifies for general damages on
the Narrative Test, for serious long-term impairment or loss of bodily function. The
general damages will have to be referred to the HPCSA and will accordingly be
postponed.
The factual matrix
5. According to a Section 19 (f)(i) affidavit, the plaintiff was a pedestrian at the time
of the accident.
6. Regarding future medical expenses. The actuary, H Solanki, estimated the future
medical expenses to be R 782 204. 00. In the premises, the defendant should
3
furnish the plaintiff with an undertaking as contemplated in terms of Section
17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996.
7. Regarding loss of earning capacity, the plaintiff launched an application in terms
of Rule 38 (2) to lead to evidence o f the experts by way of affidavit and the same
was granted.
8. According to the orthopaedic Surgeon, Dr Dybala, the plaintiff sustained a
traumatic amputation of the right thumb and index finger, a partial amputation of
the middle and ring fingers. His right elbow is in a 40-degree contracture position.
He cannot straighten it or flex it and is unable to use his right arm. He has no active
movement in the right arm, posttraumatic osteoarthritis and ankylosis of the right
wrist with residual pain.
9. He opined that the plaintiff will always retain severe impairment, particularly due to
the amputation, which is a determining factor in the quality and enjoyment of life
and working capacity throughout his lifetime. Chances of finding employment are
unlikely. His right upper limb at present is almost useless; only extensive
reconstruction surgery can improve function, and even then, the right upper limb
will have minimal function, permanently diminishing his quality of life and working
capacity for the rest of his life.
10. Dr N De Bree, an occupational therapist, opined that even with recommended
treatment, the plaintiff will still be considerably limited in the right upper limb and
would still only be suited to sedentary work and considering his education level
and previous wo rk history, it is unlikely that the plaintiff would be able to secure
employment of a sedentary nature in the open labour market. The plaintiff will likely
remain unemployed in the future due to limitations in the right upper limb. The
accident had significantly impacted his career choices.
11. Dr N Gerber, Industrial Psychologist. Opined that the plaintiff’s pre -accident
earnings or earnings potential would likely have fluctuated around the 50th
earnings or earnings potential would likely have fluctuated around the 50th
percentile (i.e., R51,865.00 gross earnings per annum) for male individuals aged
4
25 to 29 with a Grade 11 level of education performing unskilled work in Gauteng
(all sectors) as obtained from Analytico (in January 2022 values). He would likely
have continued experiencing earnings growth at this level, reaching the pinnacle
of his career with gross earnings approximately consistent with R101,082.00 per
annum by the approximate age of 55 to 59. Thereafter, earnings growth would
likely be based on annual inflationary increases as granted until retirement.
12. Post-morbid, he opined that the plaintiff has been significantly and permanently
compromised from a physical perspective because of the brachial artery and
degloving injury of the right upper limb sustained in the reported incident and the
sequelae thereof. The plain tiff has been rendered functionally unemployable
because of the injuries sustained in the reported accident and the sequelae
thereof, and will suffer a total loss of earnings for the rest of his working life.
13. The following calculations were provided by H Solank, an actuary:
Past loss: R 224 017-00 7.9.1.2. Future loss: R 1 528 484-00.
The law
14. In Baliso v Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank 1, the Constitutional Court
articulated the approach to be followed in default judgment proceedings as follows:
“In terms of our civil procedure, default judgment for a debt or liquidated
demand is granted on an acceptance of the allegations as set out in the
summons, without any evidence. Where the claim is not for a debt or liquidated
demand, the court may, after hearing evidence, grant judgment. This is usually
only evidence on the amo unt of unliquidated damages. The reason for not
hearing evidence on the other factual allegations made in the summons or
particulars of claim is that, because the claim is not oppose d, it may be
accepted that those allegations are admitted or not disputed.”
1 CCT150/15 [2016] ZACC 23.
6
JOHANNESBURG, GAUTENG
Date of Hearing: 12 August 2025
Date of Order: 12 August 2025
Date of Judgment: 01 October 2025
For the Plaintiff: Adv C Botha instructed by Van Der Lith
Incorporated
For the Defendant: Mr L Klaas (State Attorney) instructed
by The Road Accident Fund