IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISON, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 110197/2024
(1) REPORTABLE:!t!ES/NO
(2) OF INTERST TO OTHER JUDGES :¥-ES/NO
(3) REVISED
DATE 2/02/2026 SIGNATURE
In the matter between:-
LEHASA OMPILE PLAINTIFF
And
THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
MATIKA AJ
1
Introduction
1. This is an application for default judgment where the plaintiff seeks relief in his
personal capacity as results of the motor vehicle accident occurred on the 27
February 2016.
2. At the time of collision, the plaintiff was a passenger in the motor vehicle .The
plaintiff and the defendant settled the issue of liability on the basis that the
defendant shall be liable for 100% of the plaintiffs proven or agreed damages,
resulting from the motor vehicle collision occurred on the 27 February 2016.
Facts
3. On 15 May 2024, the plaintiffs claim was lodged with the Road Accident Fund.
4. On 02 October 2024, summons commencing action was issued and served on
the defendant on the 03 October 2024.
5. The defendant failed to enter appearance to defend, but settled the issue of
merits in favour of the plaintiff.
6. There was due service of the application for default judgement and notice of
set down for the 08 December 2025 was served on the defendant on 31
October 2025.
7. When the matter was called, in open court there was no appearance on behalf
of the defendant and Adv Masina appeared on behalf of the plaintiff.
Quantum
8. The Plaintiff, is claiming an amount of R 9 000 000.00 in respect loss of income,
R 1000 000.00 in respect of general damages and future medical expenses, in
his amended particulars of claim dated 12 November 2025.
2
9. The plaintiff appointed the following experts: Dr Ntimbani (neurosurgeon), Dr
Dlukulu (Clinical psychologist), DR Attreth Thobejane (Occupational
therapist},Dr LT Kekane(educational therapist) ,Cloudious nyahwema
(Industrial psychologist) and Tsebo actuaries (Actuary)
Injuries
10. The plaintiff alleged on the particulars of claim and amended particulars of claim
that he sustained Head injury-laceration on the forehead, traumatic brain injury
and right clavicle fracture.
11. According to the neurosurgeon report, the plaintiff was treated for head injury -
laceration on the fore head and right clavicle.
12. According to RAF1 form completed by Dr Simphiwe Hadebe a general
practioners it recorded on paragraph 6 that the plaintiff sustained Head injury
,abrasion on the foot and hand, upper limb soft tissue injury and chemical eye
injury .
13. According to the hospital records from Dr JS Moroka Hospital plaintiff was
diagnosed of soft tissue injury and plaintiff was complaining of painful left arm
and elbow, foreign particulars in both eyes.
14. According to the industrial psychologist report on page 7,and the educational
psychologist report , the plaintiff complains of the following:
14.1 He has right shoulder pain.
14.2 He struggles to lift heavy objects.
14.3 I-l e h a s e pilept ic s e iz ures .
14.4 He has travel related anxiety.
14.5 He has a blurry vision.
14.6 He has memory challenges and.
3
14.7 He has concentration difficulties.
Loss of income
15. The plaintiff did not appoint an orthopaedic surgeon report to quantify right
clavicle injury, which is causing the plaintiff's pain and which is causing the
plaintiff to struggle from lifting heavy objects, as per the industrial psychologist
report and conclusions, in the absence of the orthopaedic surgeon report and
an eye expert to quantify a blurry vision which allegedly caused plaintiff to
struggle with studies , the court is not in possession properly to deal with the
plaintiff loss of earnings.
General damages
16. The plaintiff is claiming R 1 000 000.00 in respect of general damages . The
defendant has not yet rejected or accepted the plaintiff's injuries as serious and
claim for general damages and therefore the court has no jurisdiction to
entertain the issue of general damages. See Road Accident fund vs Duma &
3 similar cases , 2013 (6) SA 9 SCA.
Future medical expenses
17. According to Dr Ntimbani (Neurosurgeon) report, read together all experts
appointed on behalf of the plaintiff, it is common cause that the plaintiff will
require future treatment.
Conclusion
18. Having regard to above, and in the absence of the orthopaedic surgeon report
the court is not in possession to deal with the plaintiff's loss of income and in
the absence of the Road accident fund accepting that the plaintiff's injuries are
4
Order
serous, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's claim in respect of
the general damages.
19. In the result, I make the following order:
1. The application in terms of Rule 38(2) is hereby granted.
2. The defendant is 100% liable of the plaintiff's proven and or agreed
damages.
3. The issue of liability is separated from the issue of quantum in terms of
Rule 33(4) of the Uniform Rules of the court.
4. The issue of loss of income and general damages are hereby
postponed sine die.
5. The defendant is ordered to provide the plaintiff with an undertaking in
terms of Section 17(4) (a) of the Road Accident Fund Act.
6. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff's taxed or agreed party and party
costs on the High Court scale, including the costs of counsel on scale B
and reasonable costs of expert reports delivered, within the discretion of
the taxing master
For the plaintiff
Adv Masina
Instructed by:
Biyela & Associates
FMATIKA
Acting Judge of the
High Court of South Africa
Gauteng Division, P retoria
5
Tel: 012 386 0485
Email : info@biyelaandassociates .co.za
For the Defendant: No Appearances
Date of hearing : 08 December 2025
Date of Judgement: 02 February 2026
6