THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO. 018554/2025
DELETE WH ICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: ,¥g/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: ~ /NO
(3) REVISED
05/01/2026
In the matter between:
MTHOKOZISI KHUMALO Plaintiff
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant
JUDGMENT
BHOOLAAJ ,
Introduction
[1 ] T he plaintiff, Mr Mthokozisi Khumalo, institutes action against the Road
Accident Fund (" the RAF") seeking damages arising from a motor vehicle collision
which occurred on 19 February 2023 at about 16h00 near Sheffield Street, Lenasia
South, Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. The plaintiff was a pedestrian and was an
alleged hit and run collision.
[2] The matter serves before me on the RDJ trial roll. The plaintiffs claim rests both
on liability and quantum. The issue of general damages was postponed sine die. The
plaintiff bears the onus of proving the negligence of the insured driver on a balance of
probabilities.
Factual background
[3] The plaintiff relied on the section 19(f) of the RAF Act1 and the accident report
(AR) in support of its case on liability. Upon examination of the accident report (AR), it
is noted that several entries are incomplete. In particular:
3, 1 the CAS, 08, serial and capturing numbers are blank
3.2 the AR number is 04/04/2024 yet the collision occurred on 19 February
2023.
3.3 no injuries are reflected in the AR.
3.4 the witnesses' section in the AR is blank yet there are two witness
statements
3.5 the inspecting officer's information in the AR is blank.
3.6 the accident occurred on 19/02/2023 and t he AR was completed on 3
April 2024.
3.7 the police completed the AR on 3 April 2023
the AR, contains three different writing styles
1 Act 56 of 1996, as amended
2
[4] Regarding the witness statements:
4.1 t he AR records the incident as occurring on the 19/02/2023, whereas the
witnesses state it occurred on 13 February 2023. Clarification is sought as to
dis discrepancy.
4.2 Clarification is sought on the registration number of the insured vehicle
reflected on the witness statements.
[5] Regarding medical records:
5.1 the records are uncertified and not in chronological order.
[6] No supplementary affidavit or other evidence was placed before this court to
explain these deficiencies or to provide independent corroboration of the plaintiffs
version of the collision.
Issue for determination
[7] The issue for determination whether the plaintiff has discharged the onus of
proving negligence and causation in respect of the motor vehicle collision of 19
February 2023.
Legal Principles
[8] It is trite that default judgment is not automatic. The court must be satisfied that
the claim is properly pleaded, procedurally compliant, and supported by admissible
evidence.2
2 Moolman v Estate Moolman 1927 CPA 27, RAF v Duma 2013(6) SA 9 (SCA)
3
[9] Damages cannot be considered in the absence of proof of liability and
causation.3 The plaintiff bears the onus of establishing both on a balance of
probabilities.
Evaluation
[1 O] In the present matter, upon examination of the evidence, the papers filed contain
material discrepancies and defects, including the deficiencies in the AR as alluded to
above, inconsistent dates, late completion of AR without explanation, witness
statements obtained more than twenty (20) months after the alleged accident,
reflecting a d ifferent accident date than the AR, and medical records that are
unstamped, illegible, not certified and not arranged in chronological order.
[1 1] These deficiencies are material as they represent gaps in the evidential record.
The absence of a Cas and especially the 0B number and incomplete documentation
reduce the court's ability to verify independently the circumstances of the collision,
including the reporting and recording of the hit and run. In the absence of
supplementary evidence or an affidavit explaining these gaps, the court is unable to
determine liability on a balance of probabilities without engaging in conjecture or
speculation.
[12] These defects prevent the Court from being satisfied that a prima facie case has
been established. Default judgment is not automatic; the Court must be satisfied that
the factual substratum of the claim is properly established before liability and quantum
can be assessed.
Conclusion
3 M inister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden (2002(6) SA 43] (SCA)
4
[13] In the circumstances, the court is unable to determine liability on the evidence
presented before it. The appropriate course is therefore to afford the plaintiff an
opportunity to s upplement t he evidential record, after which the matter may be re
enrolled,
[14] Dismissal or striking the matter off the roll would foreclose the claimant's right
to cure defects and re-enrol the matter, potentially causing prejudice. Postponing the
matter sine d ie preserves the claimant's opportunity to rectify the papers, while
ensuring that the Court does not consider merits prematurely. The c laimant is
accordingly granted leave to supplement and evidential record, after which the matter
may be re-enrolled.
Order
[15] As a result, I make the following order:
15.1 The plaintiff is granted leave to file an affidavit within (twenty) 20 days of
this order, addressing:
15.1.1 the discrepancies in the AR including the multiple handwriting,
date anomalies, late completion).
5.1.2 clarifying the contradictory accident dates and registration
numbers of the insured driver in the witness's statements.
5
15.2 filing authenticated medical records in a chronological manner attaching
an affidavit explaining the medical records sequence immediately after the
collision.
15.3 the matter is postponed sine die.
15.4 the plaintiff is granted leave to re-enrol the matter on the RDJ roll once
that above directions are complied with.
15.5 The costs are costs in the cause.
CB. BHOOLA
Acting Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg
Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected on 05 January 2026 and is handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties/their legal representatives bye mail and by uploading it to the electronic file of
this matter on CaseLines. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 05 January 2026.
6
APPEARANCES
Date of hearing: 21 October 2025
Date of judgment: 05 January 2026
For the plaintiff: Adv. SB Vukeya
(Tel: 083 857 7027, email vukeyaasb@gma il.com)
Instructed by: Mukovhanama Tshilidzi Attorneys
(Tel: 065 586 0244, email: Mulimisigp@gmail.com )
For the defendant: No appearance
7