IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN CAPE DIVISION - GQEBERHA)
Case No: 2845/2024
In the matter between:
PETRUS JOHANNES DIRKER Plaintiff
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant
JUDGMENT
MOLONY AJ:
Introduction
[1] The plaintiff in this matter issued summons on 30 July 2024, claiming
damages stemming from an accident which occurred on 14 October
2020 at approximately 16h30 in the afternoon, on a gravel road
between Humansdorp and Oyster Bay. The collision involved a large
truck (a horse and trailer, driven by an unknown driver – ‘the first motor
vehicle’) and a Toyota Hilux Bakkie (driven by the plaintiff – ‘the second
motor vehicle’).
\.: n I ( I
rt
:-.. .1-
/i-. •
• -
~ k 1~ .... ~~ .,.r o, $()\;\
[2] It was pleaded that the first motor vehicle was the sole cause of the
collision.
[3] The particulars of claim state that as a result of the collision, the
plaintiff sustained severe bodily injuries, those being:
(a) Piriformis syndrome.
(b) Chronic Thoracic sprain.
(c) Cervicocranial syndrome.
(d) Right hip injury.
(e) Right knee injury.
[4] The following damages have been claimed:
(a) Estimated past medical and hospital expenses – R 300 000.00.
(b) Estimated future medical and hospital expenses – R
500 000.00.
(c) Estimated past and future loss of earnings – R 3 000 000.00.
Total: R 3 800 000.00.
[5] The defendant’s plea (filed on 4 October 2024) amounted to a bare
denial, based upon a lack of knowledge of the relevant events.
[6] It was not in dispute that this court has jurisdiction to decide this matter.
[7] On 30 April 2025 an order was taken, by agreement, that the issues
pleaded by the plaintiff in paragraphs 1, 3, 4.1, 6 and 16 of the
particulars of claim (as read with the corresponding paragraphs of the
defendant’s amended plea1) be separated in terms of rule 33(4) of the
Uniform Rules. The remaining issues were stayed until such time as
the separated issues had been disposed of.
1 There was no ‘amended’ plea found in the court file, nor did the parties suggest one existed.
[8] Paragraph 1 of the particulars of claim relates to the plaintiff’s
identifying details i ncluding name, date of birth, identity number and
address. Paragraph 3 relates to the details of the collision. Paragraph
4.1 provides the available identifying details of the two motor vehicles.
Paragraph 6 lists the grounds of negligence in regard to t he driver of
the first motor vehicle.
[9] The issue of causation appears to be dealt with in paragraph 7 of the
particulars of claim, which was not one of the paragraphs separated for
determination.
[10] The matter was accordingly heard, on the separated issues, on
19 February 2026.
The Evidence
[11] There were three document bundles handed in on behalf of the
plaintiff, which were marked exhibits ‘A’ (initial lodgment documents),
‘B’ (re-submission documents) and ‘C’ (merits bundle) respectively.
[12] The plaintiff first led the evidence of his attorney of record, Ms
Niemand, who testified in regard to the lodgment of the claim. Her
evidence was necessary as the defendant, according to Ms Naidoo,
had no record of the claim being registered. Ms Naid oo placed on
record that she had sent an email requesting the document bundle, but
later (having searched her emails), placed on record that she had
discovered a bundle of lodgment documents sent by the plaintiff’s
attorney during 2025.
[13] Ms Niemand confirm ed that the necessary documentation (including a
copy of the ‘old’ and ‘new’ RAF1 forms, as required at the time) were
lodged with the defendant on 3 October 2023.2
2 See exhibit ‘A’, pp. 1 to 58.
[14] In a letter dated 29 November 2023, the defendant objected to the
validity of the claim due to certain missing documentation, and returned
the lodgment documents to the plaintiff’s attorneys of record.
Somewhat confusingly, the letter also stated that: ‘We further advise
that our pre -assessment has revealed that the claim will prescribe on
Thursday, October 13, 2022’.
[15] One of the items listed as missing in the above -mentioned letter was
the official accident report from the South African Police Service. Ms
Niemand testified that such a report did exist, but they had been
struggling to get it from the police. She confirmed that she had sent
the relevant officer a subpoena to appear in court on 19 February
2026, to explain the situation. The relevant police officer did not arrive.
[16] Ms Niemand re -submitted the plaintiff’s documents on 12 April 2024.
The response from the defendant was another letter, dated 16 July
2024, once again objecting to the validity of the claim on similar
grounds to those contained in the defendant’s letter of 29 November
2023. The second bundle of lodgment documents we re therefore
returned to the plaintiff’s attorneys of record.
[17] According to Ms Niemand, there had been substantial compliance with
the requirements for lodging a claim. This aspect was not placed in
dispute when Ms Niemand was cross-examined by Ms Naidoo.
[18] The plaintiff was the next witness to testify.
[19] The defendant, pursuant to a rule 37 minute dated 24 April 2025, 3
declined to admit the plaintiff’s personal information or locus standi .
The defendant disputed the collision, the cause of the collision, the
relevant grounds of negligence, as well as whether or not the plaintiff
had complied with the requirements of section 24 of the Road Accident
3 The minute did not appear to have been signed by Ms Naidoo, although the correctness of the
minute was not disputed when the matter was heard.
Fund Act (read with the relevant regulati ons) on lodging the claim and
prosecuting this action.
[20] Despite the above, the defendant admitted that this court had
jurisdiction to hear the matter.
[21] The plaintiff’s evidence was to the following effect:
(a) He confirmed his name, identity number, gender, address, and
locus standi.
(b) He confirmed the details of both vehicles and that the collision
occurred on the relevant date and at the relevant time, on a gravel
road between Humansdorp and Oyster Bay.
(c) On the day in question he had been travelling home to his farm and
coming from the Humansdorp direction. He was driving on a
section of the road which was well -known to be dangerous, and
where the local farming community knew to drive slowly and
carefully, and to be vigilant in regard to oncoming traffic. T here
were inter alia sinkholes in the road, which would cause vehicles to
swerve, the road had corrugated sections, and the collision itself
occurred as the plaintiff, who was travelling uphill at about 30 km
per hour, came around a 90 -degree bend in the road. He then saw
the truck, which was approaching at high speed and travelling in the
opposite direction to the plaintiff. The truck cut the corner and
encroached on the plaintiff’s side of the road. The plaintiff pulled as
far to the left as he could, causing part of his vehicle to enter a
furrow intended for storm water, and stopped. As the truck came
past, the right rear part of the truck collided with the front right -hand
side of the plaintiff’s vehicle, causing significant damage. The truck
itself had some damage to a toolbox under the trailer, mounted in
front of the back wheels of the trailer. It came to a standstill
approximately 70 meters from the back of the plaintiff’s vehicle.
(d) The plaintiff himself, after the collision, took photographs of the
vehicles and the damage caused, which formed part of exhibits ‘A’
and ‘C’.
(e) One of the photographs was of the license disk of the truck, which
was owned by Kimeshan’s Trucking. The address of Kimeshan’s
Trucking was reflected on the license disk. The details relating to
the reporting of the incident and the accident report number were
also recorded on a piece of paper, which formed part of the same
photograph.
Analysis
[22] The basis of the defendant’s objections, according to the letters of
objection, is found in Board Notice 271 of 2022, which amended the
supporting documentation which was required to accompany all claim
documentation when a claim was submitted. The import of the notice
is, in essence, to require proof of a plaintiff’s entire claim (including
expert reports) to accompany claim documentation when lodged with
the defendant
[23] The removal of the ‘new RAF1’ form in the re -submission documents
(exhibit ‘B’) occurred in compliance with the order in the matter of Legal
Practitioners Indemnity Insurance Fund NPC and Others v Road
Accident Fund and Others, 4in which inter alia, the Board Notice was
declared unlawful, reviewed and set aside. The view expressed in that
judgment has also found favour in this division, and I align myself with
that view.5
[24] There was, in my view and having considered the contents of both
lodgment bu ndles, substantial compliance with requirements, and the
4 2024 (4) SA 594 (GP) at para 55.
5 See Mlamli v Johnstone NO and Another 2024 (4) SA 611 (ECMk).
attempts to object and return documentation could not have been for
any legitimate purpose.
[25] The fact that the defendant, despite having received extensive
documentation in relation to the plaintif f’s claim, pleaded a lack of
knowledge, could only be intentionally obtuse, as the documentation
provided was clearly sufficient for the defendant to investigate the
claim.
[26] The defendant, additionally, despite the contents of the two letters sent
to the plaintiff’s attorneys of record, did not specifically plead that the
claim was invalid for any particular reason, nor did the defendant plead
that the claim had prescribed.
[27] In regard to the merits there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the
evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, which was consistent with
the photographs and the rest of the lodgment documentation.
[28] The evidence adduced by the plaintiff self-evidently demonstrated, on a
balance of probabilities, that the negligence on the part of the driver of
the truck was the sole cause of the collision.
[29] The defendant’s obtuse stance in this matter was, disappointingly, one
which required the plaintiff to incur the cost of running a trial and
adducing evidence when it was clearly not necessary. This stance also
resulted in public funds, as well as court time and resources, being
wasted. Such conduct is, in my view, worthy of a punitive costs order.
Order
[30] The following order is accordingly issued:
(a) The defendant is held liable for 100% for the plaintiff’s
proven or agreed damages emanating from the accident
that occurred on 14 October 2020.
(b) The defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s costs of suit, such
costs to be on an attorney and client scale, which costs
shall include the costs as sociated with the photographs
adduced in evidence, the cost of the interpreter employed
for 19 February 2026 and the cost of preparing exhibits ‘A’,
‘B’ and ‘C’ for trial.
(c) The defendant shall pay interest on the costs of suit at the
prescribed legal rate from 14 days after allocator to date of
payment.
_________________________________
N MOLONY
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff: Mr Frost
Instructed by: Meyer Inc. Attorneys
GQEBERHA
For the Defendant: Ms Naidoo
Instructed by: State Attorney
GQEBERHA
Heard on: 19 February 2026
Judgment delivered: 20 February 2026