SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: 76671/2017
(1) REPORTABLE: NO/YES
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO/YES
(3) REVISED: NO/YES
DATE: 1 OCTOBER 2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
N[...] P[...] M[...] OBO Minor Plaintiff
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant
Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their legal
representatives by e -mail and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
Caselines. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 1 October 2025.
JUDGMENT
Makhoba J
[1] The plaintiff instituted an action on behalf of her minor child against the
defendant for damages suffered as the result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle
accident that occurred on the 25 May 2017.
[2] At the time of the accident the minor was 5 years and 6 months old. For the
purpose of this Judgement I will refer to the minor as M[...].
[3] On the date of hearing the defendant was not represented. The matter was on
Default Judgement Roll and the Defendant's defence was struck (case lines 14 -1 to
14-3).
[4] The court is satisfied that the defendant is 100% liable for the plaintiffs
damages. Counsel for the plaintiff addressed the court and referred to her heads of
argument.
[5] The court allowed the medico -legal reports which were made under oath in
tem1s of Rule 38 (2).
[6] The claim by the plaintiff is loss of earrings in the amount of R7 840 592.00
[7] M[...] was knocked down by a motor vehicle. He was taken to hospital by car,
he sustained the following injuries:
7.1 Bruises on the right side of the forehead
7.2 Swelling on the right side of the face around the eye and forehead.
7.3 Loss of consciousness.
He was admitted and discharged the following day.
[8] Dr M.N Majeed opined that, the minor sustained a mild brain injury. His Glasgow
Coma scale (GCS) was reckoned at 15/15 and no surgical intervention was required.
[9] The clinical psychologist, N.N Mqhayi says that M[...] will benefit from
psychotherapy.
[10] The issue in this matter is whether after hearing counsel this co urt should
grant the amount as requested on behalf of the plaintiff.
[11] It is indeed so that even though defendant is not represented in the
proceedings the court cannot simply grant the order as requested, the court must
see to it that the requested order is in accordance with justice.
[12] The evaluation of the amount to be awarded for loss does not involve proof on
a balance of probabilities. It is matter of estimation. Where a court is dealing with
damages which are dependent upon uncertain future events, which is generally the
case in claims for loss of earning capacity, the plaintiff does not have to provide proof
on balance of probabilities.
[13] It is trite that the onus rests on the plaintiff to prove his case on balance of
probabilities see Pillay v Krishna, 1946 SA 946. Thus, the duty is on the plaintiff to
produce evidence that because of the injury, he has suffered loss of future income.
[14] I am called upon to perform the delicate judicial duty in that I must decide
what is the reasonable amount the plaintiff would have earned but, for the injuries
and the consequent disability.
[15] In the matter of De Kock v Road Accident Fund, Case no. 2337/2013
reported on the 22 nd of April 2015 in the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng
Division, Pretoria) the court once again confirmed the approach to be taken with the
calculation of loss stated in paragraph 22 as follows:
"[22] In approaching claims of this nature, the courts have always had open to two
possible approaches, namely:
22.1 either that the Judge makes a round estimate amount which seems to him to
be fair and reasonable. That process is entirely a matter of guesswork a blind
plunge into the unknown;
Or
22.2 that the Judge tries to make an assessment by way of mathematical
calculations on the basis of assumptions resting on the evidence. The validity of this
approach depends of course upon the soundness of the assumption, and these may
vary from the strongly probable to the speculative. "
[16] The general approach of the actuary is to posit the plaintiff, as he is proven to
have been in his uninjured state and then to apply assumptions as to his state with
the proven injuries and their sequela.
[17] The deficits which a rise between those scena rios (if any) are then translated
with reference to the various baseline means and norms used. These exercises are
designed with the aim of suggesting the various types of employment which would
hypothetically be available to the plaintiff both pre and post morbidity.
[18] It thus stands to reason that, if the base scenarios adopted by the actuary are
fallacious, the actuarial calculations are of no value to a court or the road accident
fund.
[19] In my view, the amount claimed by the plaintiff is too excessive and the
calculations by the actuary is misplaced.
[20] The amount claimed cannot be justified for the following reasons:
20.1 The minor was treated and discharged the following day with no surgical
intervention or subsequent treatments.
20.2 The clinical psychologist, N.N Maqhayi has reported that M[...] will benefit
from psychotherapy (Caselines 05-51 par 11.10.1)
20.3 There is no proof that M[...] have sustained permanent mental disability or
impairment.
[21] It is further my view that, it will be premature to award damages in respect of
future loss of earnings because the injuries sustained are not commensurate to the
assessment by the experts as reflected in their reports.
[22] In the premises, the following order is made:
22.1 The future loss of earnings is postponed until such time that the injured minor
is older and proper re-assessment can take place.
22.2 Defendant to pay plaintiffs costs.
D. MAKHOBA J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PRETORIA
Date of Hearing: 09 September 2025
Judgment delivered: 1 October 2025
Appearances
For Applicant: Adv T Raikane
For Respondent: No Appearance