(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. -~-Q~_~/_Q~/1J SIGNATURE ..
In the matter between:
KGATLA PHILLIP MABOROTHO
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
JUDGMENT
BURNETT. AJ
CASE NO: 4869/2022
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 Plaintiffs injuries are orthopedic in nature, specifically an injury to his right knee.
[9] Ms. Matjomane (the Occupational Therapist) opines that the Plaintiff is unable to
carry heavy objects due to h is chronic pain. He cannot stand or walk for long
periods of time. The Plaintiff injuries, which affect his mobility, make him an unequal
competitor on the open labour market.
LOSS OF EARNINGS
[1 O] The Plaintiff completed matric and holds a B.Ed. through Unisa. He has been
working as an educator since 1995. The Plaintiff is considered a skilled worker.
4
[11] The Plaintiff was earning R 35 000.00 (thirty-five thousand rand) as the principal of a
public school at the time of the accident. Due to his chronic pain, the Plaintiff cannot
fulfil his tasks as principal of the school. But for the accident, the Plaintiff would
have continued in this capacity until the normal age of retirement, which is 65 (sixty
five) years.
[12] The actuary calculates the total loss of earnings ( after contingency deductions) to be
R 1 789 192.00 (one million seven hundred and eighty-nine thousand one hundred
and ninety-two rand). The court accepts these calculations.
CONTINGENY DEDUCTIONS
[13] The actuary has included a contingency deduction of 20% (twenty percent) in
respect of future loss of earnings.
[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 the 20% (twenty percent) contingency loss applied by the actuary reasonable
on future earnings. 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. But for the accident, the Plaintiff probably would have
Van der Plaats v Southern African Mutual Fire and General Insurance Co 1980 (3) SA 105 (A) page
114 - 115.
5
gone on to live a normal and stable life until the age of retirement. The contingency
deductions relates unpredictable scenarios that may appear in the Plaintiff's life.
ORDER
[16] I accordingly make the following order: -
[16.1] The Defendant pays the Plaintiff an amount of R 1 789 192.00 (one
million seven hundred and eighty-nine thousand, one hundred and
ninety-two thousand rand) in respect of his 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
11 FEBRUARY 2026