(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.
2026/02/17 DATE ......................... SIGNATURE. ... .
In the matter between:
THABANG SE BOP ET JA MOGALE
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
JUDGMENT
BURNETT. AJ
CASE NO: 1169/2015
Plaintiff
Defendant
2
INTRODUCTION
[1 ] T his is an application for default judgment against the Road Accident Fund in terms
of Rule 31 (5) (a) 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) the
acceptance of merits, 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 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 five expert witnesses to give evidence in support of her claim,
namely: -
[7.1] Dr. PWS Williams (an Orthopedic Surgeon).
[7.2] Dr. RJ Phetla (an Educational Psychologist).
[7.3] Dr. B Mosadi (Specialist Neurosurgeon).
[7.4] Mr. D M Samuel (an Occupational Therapist).
[7.5] Dr. L TB Jackson (an Industrial Psychologist).
[7.6] Actuary Consulting (Actuary).
[8] T he court is satisfied that all six witnesses are in fact expert witnesses, and their
evidence is accepted as such.
4
INJURIES
[9] T he Plaintiff's injuries were mainly orthopedic in nature; however, he also had a mild
brain injury. The Plaintiff has complainants of persistent pain, constant headaches
and muscle weakness. The Plaintiff cannot walk or stand for long periods of time,
and neither can he pick up heaving objects. The Plaintiff also has difficulty
balancing and concentrating because of the pain. The Plaintiff suffers from post
concussive headaches and memory loss because of the brain injury that he
sustained.
[1 O] Mr. D M Samuel (the Occupational Therapist) opines that the Plaintiff's ability to
work has been moderately affected by his injuries.
LOSS OF EARNINGS
[11] The Plaintiff does not have a matric certificate, and since the accident occurred, will
not have the potential to acquire such. The Plaintiff would have been able to
acquire a NQF 4 qualification had it not been for the accident, however because of
the accident his highest level of education can only be a NQF 1 qualification.
[12] Dr. L TB Jackson (the Industrial Psychologist) opines that because of the injuries
sustained in the collision; the Plaintiff is likely to now remain an unskilled worker for
the remainder of his working life.
[13] The actuary calculates the total loss of earnings (after contingency deductions) to be
R 6 968 639.00 (six million nine hundred and sixty-eight thousand three hundred and
thirty-nine rand). Save for the contingency on the future loss of earnings, I am
5
satisfied that the above actuarial calculations are a true reflection of the Plaintiff's
loss of earnings.
CONTINGENY DEDUCTIONS
[14] The actuary has included a contingency deduction of 5% (five percent) in respect of
pre-morbid loss of earnings and 10% (twenty percent) on the post morbid loss of
earnings.
[15] 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
[16] I deem a 20% (twenty percent) contingency loss reasonable in the circumstances.
ORDER
[17] I accordingly make the following order: -
[17 .1] The Defendant is 100% ( one hundred percent) liable for the injuries
sustained by the Plaintiff for the collision that occurred on 11 August
2013.
[17.2] The Defendant pays the Plaintiff an amount of R 6 321 512.60 (six
million three hundred and twenty-one thousand, five hundred and
Van der Plaats v Southern African Mutual Fire and General Insurance Co 1980 (3) SA 105 (A) page
114 - 115.
6
twelve rand and sixty cents) in respect of loss of earnings within 180
days from the date of this order.
[17.3] 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.
[17.4] The Defendant shall be liable for the Plaintiffs costs of suit on a party
and party High Court Scale B.
[17.5] T he payment of the capital amount and legal costs shall be paid into
the trust account of the Plaintiffs Attorney of record.
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPLICANT: -
INSTRUCTED BY: -
DATE OF HEARING: -
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -
ADV. VF BALOYI
BURNETT , E J
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT ,
POLOKWANE ; LIMPOPO DIVISION
ML MONGADI ATTORNEYS
11 NOVEMBER 2025
17 FEBRUARY 2026