(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.
DATE ... .2Q26/Q2 /J 0,1GNA TURE .....
In the matter between:
MICHEAL MPHO MASHAPA
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
JUDGMENT
BURNETT. AJ
CASE NO: 9249/2022
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.
[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
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 his expert
witnesses via affidavit, the court granted the application in terms of Rule 38 (2).
EXPERT EVIDENCE
[7] T he Plaintiff appointed several expert witnesses to give evidence in support of his
claim. The court is satisfied that all the witnesses are in fact expert witnesses, and
their evidence is accepted as such.
INJURIES
[8] T he Plaintiff suffered orthopedic injuries, a right hemothorax (chest injury) and a mild
brain injury resulting in easy tiring and fatigue. The Plaintiff has a 7 % ( seven
percent) change of developing epilepsy.
[9] Mr. Tebong Mabatamela (the Occupational Therapist) opines that the Plaintiff is
unable to carry heavy objects due to his chronic pain and that he would only be
suitable to handle light work in the open labour market. The Plaintiff injuries, which
affect his mobility, make him an unequal competitor on the open labour market.
The Plaintiffs injuries further affect his concentration.
4
LOSS OF EARNINGS
[1 O] The Plaintiff was 28 (twenty-eight) a t the time of the accident. The Plaintiff
completed matric and furthered his education by obtaining an N4 qualification in
Business Management.
[11] The Plaintiff was a receptionist at the time that the accident occurred, however was
also a student advancing his studies. Mrs. Zeheerah (the Industrial Psychologist)
opines that, but for the accident, the Plaintiff would have been able to remain in his
position as a receptionist or even obtain a higher paying position having regard to
the furtherance of his studies. Following the accident, the Plaintiff returned to his
post as a receptionist but lost his job due to his injuries and inability to carry out his
tasks as a result thereof. Mrs. Zeheerah opined that the pain that the Plaintiff
experiences have a detrimental effect on his concentration, which will make him
prone to making mistakes is his work, thus making him vulnerable.
[12] The actuary calculates the total loss of earnings (before contingencies) to be B.
2 377 674.00 (two million three hundred and seventy thousand six hundred and
seventy-four thousand rand), which is calculated as follows: -
[12.1] Past Loss of earnings amounts to R 417 688.00
[12.2] Future loss of earnings amounts to R 1 959 986.00
[12.3] The total loss of earnings thus amounts to R 2 377 674.00.
5
[13] The court accepts these calculations, however, must apply the appropriate
contingencies.
CONTINGENY DEDUCTIONS
[14] 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
[15] I deem a 25% (twenty-five percent) contingency loss reasonable on both past and
future earnings. The reason that the said contingency is applied is because there is
no definitive confirmation from the relevant experts that the Plaintiff will not be able
to pursue his studies any further. It may be that the Plaintiff may take longer than
expected to do this, however it has not been ruled out by the relevant experts. The
Plaintiff may indeed pursue his studies after which it may potentially place him in a
higher earning bracket despite his injuries.
ORDER
[16] I accordingly make the following order: -
[16.1] The Defendant pays the Plaintiff an amount of R 1783255.50 (one
million seven hundred and eighty-three thousand two hundred and
Van der Plaats v Southern African Mutual Fire and General Insurance Co 1980 (3) SA 105 (A) page
114 - 115.
6
fifty-five rand and fifty cents.) in respect of her loss of earnings in the
above matter.
[16.2] 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. TSHITAMBA
11 NOVEMBER 2025
10 FEBRUARY 2026