IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
NORTHWEST DIVISION MAHIKENG
CASE NO: 3841/2024
In the matter between:
PATIENT MORATIWA MOTHOBI APPLICANT
And
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND RESPONDENT
LINK NO: 5359618
Judgment is handed down electronically by distributing to the parties’ legal
representatives by e-mail. The date that the judgment deemed to be handed down is
26 March 2025 at 16H00.
Reportable: NO
Circulate to Judges: NO
Circulate to Magistrates: NO
Circulate to Regional Magistrates: NO
ORDER
Consequently, the following order made:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. There is no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
MABUZAAJ
INTRODUCTION
[1 ] T his is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of this Court
delivered on 27 October 2025, wherein the applicant was awarded R900 000 in
respect of loss of earning capacity. The applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Full
Court alternatively the Supreme Court of Appeal. The application is unopposed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[2] T he applicant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which materially
affected her earning capacity. This Court accepted the evidence of medical experts,
an industrial psychologist and an actuary. Prior to the accident, the applicant's
employment history was characterised by intermittent contract work and periods of
unemployment.
[3] At the time of the accident, she was unemployed, which introduced uncertainty
regarding her future earnings. Her qualifications were limited and her employment
prospects depended largely on contract-based opportunities.
[4] Following the accident, she suffered physical and functional impairments
including reduced endurance, diminished concentration and reduced competitiveness
in the labour market. This Court accepted that she retained residual earning capacity
but that such capacity was significantly compromised.
EVALUATION OF CONTINGENCIES
[5] The actuarial calculations reflected uninjured income of R3 849 829 and injured
income of R998 122. This Court applied a conti ngency of 65% to the uninjured
scenario. This higher contingency was justified by:
1. The applicant’s unemployment at the time of the accident;
2. Her unstable work history;
3. The absence of guaranteed future employment;
4 Labour market uncertainties;
[6] This Court applied contingencies of 55% –60% to the injured scenario. This
reflected:
1. Reduced productivity;
2 Increased vulnerabilities in the labour market;
3. Diminished competitiveness.
[7] The calculation produced a range between R898 000 and R948 000. This Court
awarded R900 000 as a fair and conservative figure within that range.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
[8] The applicant contends that the calculation is incorrect and inconsistent with
paragraph 30 of the judgment. It is further argued that the contingencies are
irreconcilable and that a higher award should have been made.
[9] Reliance was placed on actuarial precision and comparative case law.
ISSUE
[10] Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would interfere with
the award.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
[11] Section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 1 governs leave to appeal. In S v
Smith,2 the Court held that there must be a sound rational basis. In Mont Chevaux
Trust v Tina Goosen,3 the threshold was confirmed as higher than mere possibility.
[12] In Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey, NO4 the court confirms that
contingency deductions account for the vicissitudes of life and that courts are not
bound by actuarial precision. It supports the fact that the damages may be assessed
broadly. In Road Accident Fund v Guedes,5 it was count actuarial calculations are not
binding.
[13] The applicant’s case amounts to dissatisfaction with the outcome rather than a
valid ground of appeal
1 Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
2 S v Smith 2012 (1) SACR 567 (SCA].
3 Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen 2014 JDR 2325 (LCC).
4 Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey 1984 (1) (A).
5 In Road Accident Fund v Guedes 2006 (5) SA 583 (SCA).
ANALYSIS
[14] The applicant’s argument is premised on the assertion that the award should
follow strict mathematical calculation. This inconsistent with the principles in Bailey’s
and Guedes cases supra. This Court exercised its discretion judicially, considering all
relevant evidence.
[15] The contingencies applied were justified by the applicant’s employment
instability and diminished capacity. The award of R900 000 falls within a rational and
defensible range. There is no misdirection in law or fact.
FINDING
[16] There are no reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different
conclusion. The application does not meet the statutory threshold.
ORDER
[17] Consequently, the following order is made:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. There is no order as to costs.
_ ___________
B MABUZA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
NORTHWEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
Heard on: 19 March 2026
Judgment delivered on: 26 March 2026
Appearances
Counsel for the Appellant: Adv Moagi
Instructed by: Mokgetle Attorneys Inc
18 Havenga Street Golfview
Mahikeng
Tel: 018 381 2916
Email: info@mokgetleinc.co.za
Ref: Mr Nhlabathi