About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPJHC 12
|
|
Baloyi v Road Accident Fund (059165/24) [2026] ZAGPJHC 12 (9 January 2026)
THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO
: 059165/24
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED
In
the matter between:
NALEDI
PATIENCE
BALOYI
Plaintiff
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT
FUND
Defendant
JUDGMENT
BHOOLA
AJ,
Introduction
[1]
Introduction
[1]
The plaintiff, Ms Naledi Patience Baloyi, institutes action against
the Road Accident Fund (“RAF”) seeking
damages arising
from a motor vehicle collision which occurred on 4 April 2021 near
Gonono Road, Giyani, Limpopo Province. At the
time of the collision,
the plaintiff was a passenger in the motor vehicle.
[2]
The plaintiff’s claim rests both on liability and quantum
relating to loss of earnings and an undertaking in terms
of section
17(4)(a) for future medical expenses. The plaintiff bears
the onus of proving the negligence of the insured
driver on a balance
of probabilities before considering the quantum.
Factual background
[3]
Upon careful consideration of the record, material and unexplained
discrepancies became apparent in the documentary evidence
relied upon
in support of the claim.
[4]
These discrepancies include amongst other things:
4.1
differing times in the report (AR) as to when the accident occurred
in relation to the time that the
AR was completed.
4.2
conflicting dates times relating to admission on the medical records
and the reporting and registration
of the accident.
4.3
alterations to recorded numbers on the AR without initials or an
explanation.
4.4
uncertainty as to contemporaneous reporting of the accident to SAPS,
and
4.5
the uncertainty of when the accident actually occurred as the AR,
medical records and section 19(f)
reflect one date and all
other agreements as well as all other expert reports reflect a
different date as to when the motor
collision occurred.
[5]
The inconsistencies go to the reliability and coherence of the
documentary foundation of the plaintiff’s case and,
in
particular, to whether all the documents relied upon relate to one
and the same collision. The court is required to determine
liability
on evidence. In the absence of a sworn explanation addressing these
discrepancies, the court is unable to make a safe
factual finding as
to when and at what time the accident occurred or whether the experts
are referring to the same accident as
the one reflected in the AR
report.
Issue
for determination
[6]
The issue for determination whether the plaintiff has discharged the
onus of proving negligence and causation as well
as the quantum in
respect of the motor vehicle collision that occurred.
Legal Principles
[7]
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.
[1]
[8]
Damages cannot be considered in the absence of proof of liability and
causation.
[2]
The plaintiff
bears the onus of establishing both on a balance of probabilities.
Evaluation
[8] In the present
case, and notwithstanding that the matter was properly enrolled and
argued, the court is of the view that
the matter is not ripe for
determination of liability in its present form. It would not be in
the interests of justice to make
a finding on liability on an
incoherent and unexplained evidentiary record. In the absence
of supplementary evidence or an
affidavit explaining the
inconsistencies, the court is unable to determine liability with
certainty, without engaging in conjecture
or speculation.
[9]
The court must ensure that findings on the merits are grounded in
reliable evidence. Where evidential deficiencies are
curable, it
would be inappropriate to dismiss the claim outright or to make
adverse findings on liability in circumstances were
the plaintiff has
not yet had the opportunity to address those deficiencies.
Conclusion
[10]
In the circumstances, the court is unable to determine liability at
this stage, on the evidence presented before it.
The appropriate
course is therefore to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to
supplement the evidential record, after which the
matter may be re
enrolled, and considered afresh.
Order
[11]
In the result, I make the following order:
11.1. The
court is unable to and has not determined the issue of liability.
11.2
The plaintiff is granted leave to file an affidavit within (twenty)
20 days of this order, addressing the
inconsistencies in the
documentary evidence.
11.3. the
matter is postponed
sine die.
11.4. The
plaintiff is granted leave to re-enrol the matter on the RDJ trial
roll once the documentary discrepancies
identified in this judgment
have been properly addressed on affidavit.
11.5
There is no order as to costs.
CB. BHOOLA
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Delivered:
This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected on
09 January
2026
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
09
January 2026.
APPEARANCES
Date
of hearing: 22 October 2025
Date
of judgment: 09 January 2026
For
the plaintiff: Adv. Nadia Badat
(Tel:
082 084 9510)
Instructed
by: BH Taula
and R Rikhotso Attorneys
(Tel:
060 660 8970, email admin@bhtaulaattorneys.co.za)
For
the defendant: Road Accident Fund
(Tel
011 760 6674, email Limnandi@raf.co.za)
[1]
Moolman
v Estate Moolman 1927 CPA 27, RAF v Duma 2013(6) SA 9 (SCA)
[2]
Minister
of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden [2002(6) SA 43] (SCA)