IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
MPUMALANGA DIVISION, MBOMBELA MAIN SEAT
JUDGMENT
Case No.: 2243/2023
In the application between:
MCOLISI RECHARD SHONGWE PLAINTIFF
And
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
NGWENYA AJ
INTRODUCTION
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED YES/NO
29 January 2026 ____NGWENYA AJ_________
DATE SIGNATURE
2
[1] The plaintiff is suing the Road Accident Fund (“Fund”) for damages resulting
from injuries sustained in an accident in which he was a passenger.
[2] The particulars of claim record that the accident took place on the 0 8th of
February 2022, whereas during the trial, the plaintiff testified that it took place on the
9th of February 2022. The plaintiff was taken and admitted to Medi-Clinic in Nelspruit.
According to the hospital records , the plaintiff was admitted on the 9 th of February
2022. Therefore, the correct accident date is the 9th of February 2022.
[3] According to the hospital records, the plaintiff complained of the following:
“ Patient was involved in an MVA on duty around 17h30 today, complaining of
chest pain, pain on left leg and headache worse on right side.”
[4] Furthermore, the hospital records indicate that the plaintiff was discharged the
next day, in the early morning, on the 10th of February 2022:
“Patient referred and discharged with take -home medication script, no
abnormalities noted, condition is clinically stable, patient’s employer called to fetch
patient and bring his clothes along.”
[5] In his section 19(f) affidavit stated that he sustained soft tissue injury on the
head and chest. This statement is found at paragraph 3 of the affidavit and reads thus:
“As a result of the accident, I sustained soft tissue injury to the head and chest. I
was taken to Medi-Clinic private hospital for medical treatment.”
3
[6] At the beginning of the trial, I was informed that the matter would proceed only
on the issue of future loss of income. The question of damages has been deferred.
[7] I am therefore called upon to determine the following issues:
7.1 The exact nature of the sequelae of the injuries sustained, and
7.2 The computation of the future loss of income.
The sequelae of the injuries
[8] I have already outlined how the plaintiff's injuries are documented in the hospital
records and in his Section 19(f) affidavit.
[9] During the trial, the plaintiff testified that he suffered head and chest injuries
and stayed in the hospital for one week. The one -week hospital stay is false; the
hospital records indicate he was discharged the following day. The neurosurgeon’s
report also confirms that the plaintiff was discharged the next day after admission.
[10] Under cross-examination, he was asked about his section 19(f) affidavit, where
it is recorded that he suffered soft tissue injuries. He replied that he did not know the
meaning of soft-tissue injury. But insisted that the injury is still there.
[11] I need to mention that the plaintiff did not explain in detail the type of injuries he
suffered.
4
[12] I now proceed to outline how the experts , i.e., the neurosurgeon, orthopaedic
surgeon, and occupational therapist , recorded the in juries and their effect s on the
Plaintiff.
[13] The neurosurgeon, Dr Mkhonza, under the current complaints recorded that :
13.1 The plaintiff complained of a headache on the left side of the head at
least twice a week and use s grandpa to alleviate the pain. This is in
contrast to the hospital records, which noted right-sided pain.
13.2 The plaintiff suffers from forgetfulness.
13.3 The plaintiff is short -tempered and irritable due to the accident.
Previously, he was calm and patient.
13.4 The plaintiff suffers from a painful left chest that gets worse in winter or
cold weather and struggles to lift heavy objects on his left side.
13.5 The plaintiff experiences left leg pain and struggles to walk long
distances.
[14] Under motor systems, Dr Mkhonza recorded that :
14.1 The plaintiff’s posture is normal.
14.2 The plaintiff’s muscle bulk is symmetrical and normal in all muscle
groups.
5
14.3 The plaintiff has abnormal movement noted.
14.4 The plaintiff’s tone is normal (2+).
14.5 The plaintiff’s power is normal (5/5) in all limbs.
14.6 The plaintiff’s reflexes are normal.
14.7 The plaintiff’s coordination is normal.
[15] In conclusion, Dr. Mkhonza found that the plaintiff suffered mild traumatic brain
injury (concussion) and soft tissue injuries to the chest and left leg. According to the
report, this is known as persistent post -concussive symptoms and that there is no
specific treatment as this condition can resolve itself within a few weeks or months,
except in the most severe cases. The plaintiff’s case is not such a case; otherwise, the
report would have expressly stated this fact. He then suggested psychotherapy and
pain medication.
[16] The orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Masipa, under injuries sustained, recorded that:
16.1 The plaintiff suffered a chest and head injury as recorded in the RAF
form. Head and chest injury as reported by the patient(plaintiff). And
according to medical records (hospital records), the plaintiff suffered
blunt trauma.
16.2 Under the present main complaints, Dr Masipa recorded that the
plaintiff’s complaints a re chest pains aggravated by physical ex ertion
and lifting of heavy objects. And further recorded that the plaintiff suffers
from headaches and memory loss.
6
[17] Under the upper limbs, Dr Masipa recorded that:
17.1 No abnormalities detected.
17.2 Shoulder flexion and extension were normal, including elbow and wrist
function, and fingers.
[18] Under lower-limps, he recorded that:
18.1 There was no deformity.
18.2 Muscle power is 5/5.
18.3 Reflexes were normal.
18.4 Sensation was intact
18.5 Range of motion was normal.
[19] Dr Masipa’s conclusion is that the plaintiff suffered acute pain for about 2 weeks
following his injuries. He recommended that the pain can be managed with pain
medication and anti -inflammatories. Regarding occupation and employability, Dr
Masipa opined that the plaintiff’s condition will improve with the recommended
treatment ( i.e., pain medication and anti-inflammatories); he deferred this question to
the occupational therapist and industrial psychologist for full comment.
[20] The Occupational Therapist, Dr Molemi, did a physical evaluation of the plaintiff
and put the plaintiff through some exercises and recorded that:
20.1 As regards upper limbs, she found that the plaintiff demonstrated
functional strength and a full range of movement in both upper limbs and
7
all joints. No accident-related limitations were noted in this regard, and
no reports of pain were made during physical screening.
20.2 With regard to lower limbs, the plaintiff presented with functional strength
and a full range of movement of both lower limbs and all joints. No
accident-related limitations w ere noted in this regard , and no report of
pain was made during physical screening
20.3 The occupational therapist concludes that the plaintiff’s work rate is 90%
and meets the standards of the open labour market. He further
mentioned that the plaintiff was able to carry loads of 7.5kg for a short
distance of 8 metres. However , he reported chest pain. He ends by
saying that the physical, cognitive and psychological functioning
following the injuries has been negatively affected to the extent that the
plaintiff is no longer suited for heavy work. This is not supported by the
available evidence, as shall become apparent hereunder.
[21] The crucial concerns in this case are the plaintiff’s agility and strength , and
whether they will be affected in the long term. According to all the experts, the plaintiff
has the necessary strength and agility, as the accident did not cause any permanent
impairment. The occupational therapist concluded that the Plaintiff demonstrated full
functional strength and a full range of movement in both upper and lower limbs, and
that there were no accident-related limitations.
[22] The question is what is to be made of the chest pain, of which the plaintiff said
he felt after lifting some heavy objects during the assessment with the occupational
8
therapist. None of the experts ha s located the cause of the chest pains. In fact, the
most recorded complaints are the pain regarding headaches, which are managed by
Grandpa twice a week. The evidence shows that the plaintiff suffered soft tissue
injuries on his chest and that there was no permanent damage to the chest bone
structure, so as to cause permanent damage.
[23] To corroborate this, none of the experts recommended further chest treatment
for the plaintiff. It is therefore clear that the injuries of the plaintiff were minor, and that
is confirmed by the fact that he spent a few hours in the hospital , as he was admitted
late in the evening on the 09 th of February 2022 and discharged the next day in the
morning.
[24] In addition , the plaintiff returned to his workplace and performed the same
tasks. During the evidence, he testified that he was accommodated, but there was no
evidence substantiating that claim. His salary did not decrease; in fact, it increased. I
also need to mention that the plaintiff’s testimony had many discrepancies; for
instance, he stated that he stayed in the hospital for a week. Hospital records show
that he stayed for hours. Furthermore, he mentioned that it took him a month to recover
and return to work. However, according to Dr Molemi’s report, it took him 7 days to
recuperate. Lastly, he testified that he was retrenched following the injuries. But there
is no proof, in fact, Dr Molemi’s report records that he was still employed at the same
place.
[25] In the premises, I find that the Plaintiff has failed to make out a case for future
loss of income.
[26] In the premises, I make the following order:
1. The plaintiff's claim regarding future loss of income is dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff is ordered to pay the Defendant's costs on High Court scale A.
T S NGWENYA AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF HIGH COURT,
MPUMALANGA , MBOMBELA
Date of hearing: 05 June 2025
Date of judgment: 29 January 2026
Counsel for the Plaintiff:
Instructed by:
Email Address:
Counsel for the Defendant:
Instructed by:
Email Address:
Adv P Tshavhungwe
Ngomana & Associate Attorneys
mvanst1@ngomana-attorneys .co.za
Adv M Ndubani
State Attorney
fulufhelos@raf .co.za
9
10