(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:
GOODNESS TLANGELANI MARINGA
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
JUDGMENT
BURNETT. AJ
CASE NO: 7610/2021
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 future medical expenses and
loss of earnings. The Plaintiff seeks a postponement on the determination of
general damages.
[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
3
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
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 five expert witnesses to give evidence in support of her claim,
namely: -
[7.1] Dr. P.T Kumbirai (an Orthopedic Surgeon).
[7.2] Ms. M Mogale (an Occupational Therapist).
[7.4] Dr. L.T. B Jackson (an Industrial Psychologist).
[7.5] Johan Sauer (Actuary).
[8] T he court is satisfied that all four witnesses are in fact expert witnesses, and their
evidence is accepted as expert testimony.
4
ANALYSIS
[9] The Plaintiffs injuries are orthopedic in nature, more specifically a fracture to her
right ankle. The Plaintiff underwent surgery and remained as an in-patient at the
Tzaneen Medi-Clinic for a period of 10 (ten) days, during which time the Plaintiff
received sepsis management emanating from the injury and physiotherapy and
rehabilitation.
[1 O] The Plaintiffs injury is not deemed serious and, save for some pain, she has
completely healed therefrom. The Plaintiff only achieved a Whole Person
Impairment at 3% (three percent).
[11] According to Dr. P.T Kumbirai (the Orthopedic Surgeon) the Plaintiff suffers some
pain, which is prolonged by standing walking, lifting heavy weights and cold weather.
The pain is not permanent and not chronic.
[12] Ms. M Mogale (the Occupational Therapist) opines that the injury has mildly
impaired the Plaintiff's standing and walking endurance. Mild means gentle - her
walking and standing endurance has only been gently affected by her ankle surgery.
The Occupational Therapist further opines that the Plaintiff displays adequate
functional capacity that would result in the ability to perform light to medium physical
type of work. Adequate means "good enough in quality, for a particular purpose or
need. "1 This means that t he Plaintiffs physical ability is good enough to perform
medium physical work. T here is nothing before this court to suggest that the injury
is a debilitating one.
The Online Oxford English Dictionary accessed 8 February 2026.
5
[13] The P laintiff completed matric whereafter she obtained a N3 certificate in electrical
engineering. Dr. L.T. B Jackson (the Industrial Phycologist) opined that the
applicant be able to obtain employment in a semi-skilled job level.
[1 4] T he P laintiff was 34 (thirty-four) years old at the time of the accident and would
probably have continued to work until the age of 65 (sixty-five) years old. The
Plaintiff was earning an amount of R 9 000.00 (nine thousand rand) per month at the
time of the accident. These earnings would have steadily increased over the years,
the degree of which would have depended on further vocational advancement.
[15] The applicant is still employed in her pre-accident post and continues to work and
earn the same income. There is insufficient evidence before this court to suggest
that the Plaintiff would not be able to undergo further vocational advancement post
accident.
[16] The Plaintiffs injury is not serious. The mere fact that a Plaintiff has been injured in
an accident does not automatically mean that he/she will suffer a loss of earnings. A
Plaintiff has a right t o claim loss of earnings but must prove actual damage in this
regard. This has not been done in this case and there is insufficient evidence to
prove that the injury sustained by the Plaintiff is a debilitating one.
[17] One can expect some level of pain emanating from an orthopedic injury; however,
the pain that was suffered by the Plaintiff, is in this court's view not serious enough
to affect her earnings. Her pain is only experienced from time to time, and it is not
chronic and/or debilitating. Ms. M Mogale (the occupational therapist) refers to her
impairment as mild (meaning gentle). There is insufficient evidence before this
6
court to prove that the gentle pain that is experienced from time to time is to such an
extent that she is vulnerable within the open labour market and will suffer a loss of
past and future earnings.
[18] To the extent that the Plaintiff requires future medical treatment, she is entitled to an
order for an undertaking in terms of section 17 (4) (a) of the Road Accident Fund Act
56 of 1996 (as amended). The medical treatment that may be required by the
Plaintiff will not exceed the monetary jurisdiction of the Regional Court, and in the
unlikely event that general damages is granted, it is also unlikely to exceed the
monetary jurisdiction of the Regional Court.
ORDER
[19] I accordingly make the following order: -
[19.1] The Plaintiff's claim for loss of earnings is dismissed.
[19.2] The Defendant shall provide the Plaintiff with an undertaking in terms
of 17 (4) (a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (as amended)
in respect of future medical expenses.
[19.2] The Plaintiff's claim for general damages in postponed sine die.
[19.4) The Defendant shall be liable for the Plaintiff's costs of suit on a party
and party Regional Court scale.
BURNETT, E J
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPLICANT: -
INSTRUCTED BY: -
DATE OF HEARING: -
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -
7
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
POLOKWANE; LIMPOPO DIVISION
ADV. ME MAMPA
12 NOVEMBER 2025
10 FEBRUARY 2026