SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2024-077313
In the matter between:
M[…] : F[…] B[…] Plaintiff
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant
Summary:
Evidence – Single witness. Credibility, probability, reliability and sufficiency of
evidence. The onus of proof is only discharged on objective, credible and
reliable evidence.
JUDGMENT
UYS AJ:
Order
[1] Having considered the evidence and heard counsel for both parties, it is
ordered that:
1.1. Default judgment is dismissed with costs.
[2] The reasons for order follow:
Introduction
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
28 April 2026 P Uys (AJ)
DATE Signed electronically below
2
[3] This action was enrolled on the RAF default judgment roll of 3 March 2026.
[4] The plaintiff moved a substantive application in terms of Rule 38( 2) of the
Uniform Rules of Court that the factual evidence of the plaintiff, other factual
witnesses and the experts be adduced upon affidavit. The application was supported
by an affidavit by the plaintiff’s attorney (Mr Myeni) with no confirmatory affidavit from
the plaintif f. The founding affidavit contains no facts on or in support of liability or
causal negligence of the insured driver.
[5] The nature of the proceedings and the evidence and the interest of justice
demanded that viva voce evidence be heard in open court on the question of liability.
[6] Determination of liability (causal negligence of the insured driver) was
separated from the balance of the issues and the balance of the issues postponed
sine die.
The evidence
[7] The plaintiff was a single witness in respect of the incident which occurred on
6 September 2019 on the R618, in the vicinity of Somkehle, district of Mtubatuba.
[8] No other factual witness, including fellow passengers, the driver, or any
investigating officer, was called.
[9] The plaintiff gave evidence that:
9.1. She was a passenger in a passenger bus travelling from Gauteng to
KwaZulu-Natal to attend a cultural celebration.
9.2. She was 14 years of age at the time of the incident.
9.3. She was not seated at the time and standing at her seat and next to a
side window while the bus was in motion.
9.4. The bus “jerked” from side to side, causing her to lose her footing and
fall through the side window to the ground next to the bus.
3
[10] The plaintiff gave no evidence on the reason for the jerking manoeuvre, the
speed of the bus, traffic conditions, road surface, braking, potholes, collision threat,
or any manoeuvre observed by her.
[11] The nature, extent, severity and cause of the movement of the bus remained
wholly unexplained.
[12] The plaintiff contradicted herself on whether she fell through an open window
or was propelled out of the bus together with the entire window and/or it’s frame.
[13] The plaintiff could not elaborate whether other passengers were injured but
confirmed that she was the only passenger that was propelled out of the bus.
[14] The plaintiff attested to a section 19(f) statutory affidavit in terms of the Road
Accident Fund Act, a copy of which is uploaded to CaseLines 11-44.
[15] The affidavit simply states that “ the plaintiff was a passenger in a motor
vehicle with registration number NHL30801 and that the driver was trying to avoid a
collision with another motor vehicle, when he swerved the vehicle and the plaintiff fell
from the vehicle”.
[16] Both the affidavit and the plaintiff’s evidence on the occurrence of the
collision/incident lacks particularity and detail.
The statutory context of the RAF Act
[17] The Act creates a statutory claim for compensation for loss or damage arising
from bodily injury caused by or arising from the negligent driving of a motor vehicle
(s17).
The onus of proof
[18] The plaintiff must prove:
18.1. Negligence or other wrongful driving- related conduct by the insured
driver, and
18.2. a causal link between such conduct and her injuries.
4
[19] The court should weigh the evidence, consider the contents, decide whether it
is trustworthy and assess whether, despite shortcomings, defects or contradictions in
the testimony, the truth has been told1. In Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery Group Ltd &
Another vs Martell et Cie & Others2 it was held that probability assessment:
“Necessitates an analysis and evaluation of the probability or improbability of
each party’s version on each of the disputed issues.”
[20] Section 16 of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act 3, provides that:
“Judgment may be given in any civil proceedings on the evidence of any
single competent and credible witness”.
[21] There is no special approach that cautions against the acceptance of the
evidence of a single witness (See Road Accident Fund vs Maseng 4). Absence of
opposition does not lower the evidentiary burden.
[22] It is trite that the court must weigh the evidence, consider the merit and
demerit and, having done so, decide whether it is trustworthy and whether despite
the fact that there are shortcomings or defects or contradictions in the testimony, the
court is satisfied that the truth has been told. Although civil trials are decided on the
balance of probability, the credibility and probability are often intertwined.
[23] Meeting the required onus i n this matter, requires either credible direct proof
of negligent driving or sufficiently cogent circumstantial evidence from which such
negligence may be inferred5.
[24] In Maseng, supra at [12], Van der Linde, J who wrote for the full bench, held
that:
24.1. Whether a particular assertion or event is probable or not, is aided by
the fact adjudicator’s own experience and the application of known
rules of logic.
1 S vs Sols & Others 1981(3) SA172(AD) at 180 E - G
2 2003(1) SA11 (SCA) at [5]
3 25 of 1965
4 2017 (JDR) 0914 (GJ) at [9]
5 Macleod vs Rens 1997(3) SA1039(E) at 1049 A to B and H Mohammed & Associates v Buyeye 2005(3) SA
122(C) at 129 D to F
5
24.2. In a collision case, often, the adjudicator will him -or herself have been
driving motor vehicles and will have observed the force of momentum,
and the consequence of a swerve manoeuvre.
24.3. This acquired knowledge and experience is inevitably brought to bear
on the analysis that the probability assessment calls for.
Conclusion on the evidence
[25] The cause and mechanism of ejection is central to negligence and causation.
[26] The cause, onset, severity and reason for the sideways movement of the bus
remained wholly unexplained during evidence.
[27] The reason why the plaintiff was standing opposed to sitting and to the extent
to which this contributed to the incident were not explained during evidence and
remain unknown.
[28] The absence of evidence explaining why she was standing affects the court’s
ability to reconstruct the incident and assess causal negligence.
[29] The absence of evidence explaining force /velocity involved, the angle of the
swerve, state of the window, together with the fact that no other passenger was
similarly affected weakens the inferential strength and probability of the plaintiff’s
version.
[30] The absence of opposing evidence does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden
of proving negligence. The material evidential gaps cannot be filled by speculation or
common-sense inference regarding the movement of the bus.
[31] It is impossible to infer that the movement was negligent rather than an
emergency avoidance manoeuvre, road-surface event, or non-negligent disturbance.
[32] The evidence is wholly insufficient to determine, on the balance of
probabilities, whether the driver was causally negligent.
Order
[33] As a result, it is ordered that:
6
33.1. Default judgment is dismissed with costs.
[34] I hand down the judgment.
_____________________________________
P UYS
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION
JOHANNESBURG
Signed Electronically
Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Acting Judge whose
name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their
legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter
on CaseLines. The date of the judgment is deemed to be 28 April 2026.
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: R.E.Randambar instructed by Myeni
Attorneys
FOR THE DEFENDANT: T Bell instructed by the State Attorney
Johannesburg
DATE OF THE HEARING: 5 March 2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28 April 2026