(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.
DATE2026 / Q2/.1.0 .. SIGNATURE..
In the matter between:
MAGAELA KARABO MALA T JI
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
JUDGMENT
BURNETT. AJ
CASE NO: 3357/2024
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 earnings. The Plaintiff
requests that the aspect of general damages be postponed sine die.
[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 he sought for his 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
3
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 his 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 his claim,
namely: -
[7.1] Dr. D Chula (a Neurosurgeon).
[7.2] Dr. E Monyela (an Educational Psychologist).
[7.3] Dr. M Sekele (an Occupational Therapist).
[7.4] Dr. B Selepe (an Industrial Psychologist).
[7.5] Dr. N Kambaran (Actuary).
[8] T he court is satisfied that all five witnesses are in fact expert witnesses, and their
evidence is accepted as such.
4
INJURIES
[9] The Plaintiffs suffered inter alia a head injury in the collision that gave rise to this
action. The head injury has caused inter alia, chronic headaches and memory
impairment. The Plaintiff also suffers from chronic neck, spine and back pains. The
injury has been assessed as serious and has a total whole bodily impairment of 31 %
(thirty-one percent). Dr. E Monyela (the Educational Phycologist) opines that the
Plaintiff is unable to concentrate because of his injuries. He has low self-esteem, is
irritable and short-tempered. The injury has affected his pre-accident functioning.
LOSS OF EARNINGS
[1 O] The Plaintiff was 26 (twenty-six) years old and a mechanical engineering student at
the time of the accident. Dr. Dr. E Monyela (the Educational Phycologist) opines
that but for the accident, the Plaintiff would have obtained his NQF Level 7
qualification in mechanical engineering. Having regard to the accident, the Plaintiff
would probably struggle to obtain his chosen qualification but could obtain a lesser
NQF level 5 qualification.
[1 1] Dr. B Selepe (the Industrial Psychologist) opines that, had it not been for the
accident: -
[11.1] The Plaintiff would likely continue studying until he completes his
degree around the ages of 24 and 25 years. Considering the
availability of scholarships and internships in South Africa, upon
completion of his degree, the Plaintiff would have found it easy to
5
secure an internship as part of obtaining p ractical experience for his
qualification.
[1 1.2] Taking into consideration the unemployment rate in South Africa, the
Plaintiff would have secured formal employment within 1 to 2 years
upon completion of his studies. This means that Plaintiff would likely
have entered the labour market between the age of 26 and 27 years
old.
[1 1.3] The qualification would enable the P laintiff to secure a practical
internship which would in all probabilities enable him to compete for a
job grade at Koch semi-skilled salary scale of R 218 000.00 per annum
basic salary in the formal sector. This qualification coupled with
practical internship would have in all probabilities enabled the Plaintiff
to secure a permanent/long/fixed-erm contract employment within the
corporate sector, which would have allowed the Plaintiff to earn in line
with the Paterson B4/C1 l ower scale. The Plaintiff would probably
have progressed possibly reaching a career ceiling by the age of 45 at
Paterson D1 Median Band.
[1 1.4] Given the above scenarios, in the absence of serious health
impairments and the Plaintiff's willingness to study further, personal
work capacity and strength intact, the Plaintiff would have been able to
exercise his career of choice, and in the same way as his peers.
6
[12] Dr. B Selepe (the Industrial Psychologist) further opines that because of the incident,
the Plaintiff would only have obtained an NFQ Level 5 qualification and: -
[12.1] Due to his long-term cognitive impairments, the P laintiff would take
longer to secure suitable employment, particularly because he would
struggle with psychometric testing and interviews.
[12.2] T he q ualification, coupled with practical internship, would, in all
probabilities, enable the Plaintiff to compete for a job graded at
Paterson Grade B3 Band total guarantee package in the corporate
sector.
[12.3] Given the Plaintiff's symptoms and prognosis, it appears that t he
Plaintiff may struggle to perform his duties diligently and optimally due
to contact pain and comfort and may rely on a sympathetic employer.
[13] The actuary calculates the total loss of earnings as follows: -
[13.1] Past Loss of earnings (the difference between pre and post morbid)
amounts to R 6 973 005.00.
[13.2] Less Contingency deductions R 1 631 627.00
[13.3] The total loss of earnings thus amounts to R 5 341 378.00
[14] I am satisfied that the above actuarial calculations are a true reflection of the
Plaintiff's loss of earnings.
7
CONTINGENY DEDUCTIONS
[15] The actuary has included a contingency deduction of 15% ( fifteen percent) in
respect of pre-morbid loss of earnings and 50% (fifty percent) on the post morbid
loss of earnings.
[16] 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
[17] I deem the contingency loss applied by the actuary reasonable in the circumstances.
ORDER
[18] I accordingly make the following order: -
[18.1] The Defendant pays the Plaintiff an amount of R 5 341 378 (five million
three hundred and forty-one thousand, three hundred and seventy
eight rand) in respect of his loss of earnings in the above matter.
[18.2] 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.
[18.3] T he Plaintiff's claim for general damages in postponed sine die.
Van der Plaats v Southern African Mutual Fire and General Insurance Co 1980 (3) SA 105 (A) page
114 - 115.
8
[18.4] T he 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. NTSAKO BALOYI
MH MALEPE ATTORNEYS
12 NOVEMBER 2025
10 FEBRUARY 2026