(1)
(2)
(3)
1
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
LIMPOPO DIVISION , POLOKWANE
REPORT ABLE: YES/NO
OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
REVISED.
2026/02/10 DATE ......................... SIGNATURE..
In the matter between:
EMMA TOMI
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
JUDGMENT
BURNETT. AJ
CASE NO: 763/2013
Plaintiff
Defendant
2
INTRODUCTION
[1 ] T his is an application for default judgment against the Road Accident Fund in terms
of Rule 31 (2) of the Uniform Rules of Court read with the Practice Directives of this
division.
[2] T he merits have previously been finalised, and the matter was enrolled for
determination of quantum only, and more specifically loss of support.
[3] T he necessary original documentation, i.e. a) combined summons; b) return of
service; c) application for default judgment; d) notice of set down and e) merits court
order, was properly filed with this court. There was proper service of the combined
summons, application for default judgment and notice of set down on the Defendant
The court was satisfied that the matter was correctly enrolled and proceeded to hear
the matter.
[4] T here was no appearance on behalf of Defendant.
APPLICATION IN TERMS OF RULE 38 (2)
[5] At the start of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought a formal application in terms of Rule
38 (2) of the Uniform Rules of Court, in terms of which she sought for her evidence
to be led by way of affidavit. Rule 38 (2) reads as follows: -
"The witnesses at the trial of any action shall be orally examined, but a court may at
any time, for sufficient reason, order that all or any of the evidence to be adduced at
any trial be given on affidavit or that the affidavit of any witness be read at the
hearing, on such terms and conditions as to it may seem meet: Provided that where
3
it appears to the court that any other party reasonably requires the attendance of a
witness for cross-examination, and such witness can be produced, the evidence of
such witness shall not be given on affidavit."
[6] T he original application was filed before the court. Having regard to the fact that the
matter before the court is a default judgment application, and that it would be
practical and convenient to hear the evidence of the Plaintiff, and her expert
witnesses via affidavit, the court granted the application in terms of Rule 38 (2).
EXPERT EVIDENCE
[7] T he Plaintiff appointed two expert witnesses to give evidence in support of her claim,
namely LL Langa, an Industrial Psychologist and N Waisburg, an actuary. The
court is satisfied that both witnesses are in fact expert witnesses, and their evidence
is accepted as such.
LOSS OF SUPPORT
[8] T he deceased was married to the Plaintiff and together they had four children, all of
which were minors and financial dependents at the time that he was killed in the
motor vehicle collision.
[9] T he deceased was an educator at the Department of Education who earned a gross
salary of R 12 020.25 (twelve thousand twenty rand and twenty-five cents) and a net
salary of R 9 478.38 (nine thousand four hundred and seventy-eight rand and thirty
eight cents). He was the breadwinner in the family.
4
[10] The deceased was 47 (forty-seven) years old at the time of his death. His highest
level of education was a master's degree in mathematics.
[11] An actuary calculated the Plaintiff's (and the children's) loss of support on two
scenarios, namely on a 7 .5% contingency deduction and a 10% contingency
deduction.
CONTINGENY DEDUCTIONS
[12] A contingency deduction allows for the possibility that the Plaintiff may have less
than normal expectations of life, and that he may experience periods of
unemployment by reason of incapacity due to illness, accident, unrest or unstable
economic conditions. The underlying rationale is that contingencies allow for
general hazards of life. 1
[13] Having regard to the evidence before this court, the deceased has led a stable life
personally as well as professionally insofar as his employment as a teacher is
concerned. He was 47 years old, had a mathematics degree, and was employed in
an important sector. There will always be a need for educators. There is nothing
before this court insofar as the deceased's personal circumstances are concerned to
suggest that anything major altering would have occurred in his life had it not been
for his death. The deceased would probably have gone on to live a normal and
stable life as an educator in a public school.
Van der Plaats v Southern African Mutual Fire and General Insurance Co 1980 (3) SA 105 (A) page
114 - 115.
5
[14] It would however be prudent to apply a contingency deduction for the unpredictable
hazards of life, which in this case, I deem a 10% (ten percent) contingency to be
reasonable.
ORDER
[15] I accordingly make the following order: -
[15.1] The Defendant pays the Plaintiff an amount of R 3 096 328.00 (three
million ninety-six thousand three hundred and twenty-eight rand) in
respect of her loss of support claim in the above matter.
[15.2] The Defendant shall be liable for the Plaintiffs costs of suit on a party
and party High Court Scale B.
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPLICANT: -
INSTRUCTED BY: -
DATE OF HEARING: -
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -
BURNETT , E J
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT ,
POLOKWANE ; LIMPOPO DIVISION
ADV. MAKGOPA SEELE
12 NOVEMBER 2025
10 FEBRUARY 2026