SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAHIKENG
CASE NO: RAF 154/2017
Reportable: YES / NO
Circulate to Judges: YES / NO
Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO
Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO
In the matter between:
K[...] D[...] M[...] PLAINTIFF
And
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT
Coram: TSAUTSE AJ
Date considered: 2 March 2026
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties'
representatives via email. The date and time for the hand -down of the judgment is deemed to
be 10h00 on 11 May 2026.
JUDGEMENT
TSAUTSE AJ
Introduction
[1] This is a claim arising from injuries sustained by the plaintiff, who was a minor at the
time of the incident. The plaintiff, then eleven (11) years old, was injured in a motor vehicle
collision in 201 6. The action is instituted against the Road Accident Fund (“RAF”) for
general damages and loss of earning capacity.
[2] The defendant conceded liability on the merits in full, that is , 100% in favour of the
plaintiff.
[3] At the outset, the plaintiff brought a preliminary application in terms of Rule 38(2) of
the Uniform Rules of Court, read with section 34(2) of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act 25
of 1965, seeking that all evidence in this matter be adduced by way of affidavit.
[4] During the argument, the defendant’s counsel opposed the claim for loss of earnings,
submitting that the educational psychologist’s report only commenced its assessment from
Grade 3 due to the absence of school reports for Grades 1 to 3. Counsel accordingly
requested that the matter be referred back to the educational psychologist once the plaintiff
has produced the reports from Grade R to Grade 2.
[5] The Court ruled that the claim for loss of earnings be separated and excluded from the
present adjudication, and directed the plaintiff to furnish the Grade R to Grade 2 reports to
the educational psychologist, who is to revise the report once those documents are available.
[6] The only issue presently requiring determination of this Court is therefore the
quantum of general damages. The loss of earnings claim stands over for further process once
the outstanding documentation has been provided.
[7] This judgment is thus concerned with the assessment of general damages, that is,
appropriate compensation for the plaintiff’s pain, suffering, emotional distress and loss of
amenities of life occasioned by the injuries sustained in the collision.
Background Facts
[8] At the time of the collision, the plaintiff was an eleven (11) years old minor in Grade
4 of his primary school. The plaintiff has now reached the age of majority and is currently
twenty years old.
[9] On 19 May 2016, at approximately 18:10, a collision occurred along Mokareng Road
in Taung, North West Province, when the plaintiff was riding his bicycle and was struck by
the insured vehicle.
[10] As a result of the collision, the plaintiff was hospitalised for seven days and received
orthopaedic care for the following injuries:
10.1 A fracture of the femur that required surgical intervention, involving the insertion of
titanium elastic nails. The fracture was successfully stabilised, and the nails were removed
approximately twenty months later.
10.2 A mild traumatic brain injury, which was assessed with an initial Glasgow Coma Scale
(GCS) score of 14 out of 15.
10.3 Abrasions on the face and a left cranial nerve VI (CN VI) palsy.
10.4 According to the orthopaedic report, the plaintiff has permanent disfigurement, including
an 8 cm x 1 cm surgical scar on the lateral aspect of the knee and an 8 cm x 2 cm surgical
scar on the medial aspect of the knee.
[11] Following the accident, the Plaintiff has identified several significant medical
complaints:
11.1. Recurrent severe headaches that occur weekly, for which he self-medicates
using over-the-counter analgesics.
11.2. Persistent leg pain that is aggravated by cold weather.
11.3. Difficulty standing or walking for extended periods.
11.4. Reduced endurance and impaired gross motor coordination.
11.5. Psychological effects, including irritability, anger, forgetfulness, concentration
difficulties, nightmares, and flashbacks.
11.6. Academically, the Plaintiff experienced repeated failures starting from Grade 6 and
ultimately left mainstream schooling at Grade 8 to pursue vocational training.
This pattern is consistent with post-traumatic cognitive and psychosocial difficulties.
[12] The plaintiff is now claiming R120000 million for the general damages
Applicable Legal Principles
[13] In determining non -patrimonial damages, the court is guided by established
principles. In Senyasamore obo KOS v Road Accident Fund (RAF 583/2023) ZANWHC 81,
Djadje DJP (as she was the n) dealt with a matter involving a minor child who sustained a
serious head injury, with a GCS score of 11/15, and multiple facial abrasions. The child
developed ongoing headaches, memory problems and poor scholastic performance. The
Court reiterated that general damages are compensatory rather than punitive; they are
intended to provide relief for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities of life. Relying on Sandler
v Wholesale Coal Suppliers Ltd 1941 AD 194, the Court emphasised that previous awards in
comparable cases serve only as guidelines, and that each case must be determined on its own
facts. Having regard to the severity of the injury and its impact on the minor’s life, an amount
of R1,8 million was awarded for general damages.
[14] A similar approach was adopted in Viller NO obo TP Ganenang v Road Accident
Fund (RAF 524/2022), where Djadje DJP (as she was then) again stressed that while
comparable awards are useful, the primary focus must remain on the particular circumstances
of the injured person, the seriousness and consequences of the injuries, and their effect on the
claimant’s life trajectory. These authorities collectively emphasize that general damages must
claimant’s life trajectory. These authorities collectively emphasize that general damages must
be fair and just, guided (but not dictated) by past awards and grounded in the concrete impact
of the injuries on the individual.
[15] From these and related decisions, the following guiding principles emerge in matters
involving injured children and young persons:
15.1. The injury must be understood comprehensively, taking into account all aspects of the
child's experience and circumstances.
15.2. Central to this assessment is the child’s developmental trajectory, which highlights the
importance of considering how the injury affects their growth and progress at various stages
of life.
15.3. Finally, any awards or compensations must reflect a deep respect for the child’s dignity,
acknowledge the suffering endured, and consider the long -term implications of the injury on
their future.
Comparative Awards
[16] Counsel for the plaintiff referred the Court to several comparable decisions. I mention
two that are particularly instructive.:-
16.1. In Smit v Road Accident Fund (24883/2008) ZAGPPHC 294, Makgoka J awarded R650
000 in general damages to a 27-year-old cyclist who sustained a femoral fracture and a severe
head injury. The plaintiff suffered significant pain, frequent headaches and physical
limitations that prevented a return to his previous employment. In assessing the award, the
Court considered the seriousness and combined effect of the orthopaedic and head injuries,
their lasting impact on daily functioning, the erosion of the value of money over time, and
comparable cases such as Mgudlwa v Road Accident Fund (818/2002) ZAECMHC 13 and
Venter NO and Another v Road Accident Fund (859/2007) ZAWCHC 208.
16.2. In Brouwer NO v Road Accident Fund (22517/2012) ZAGPPHC 21, Miller AJ awarded
R1 600 000 in general damages to a minor aged five at the time of a 2010 collision. The
award reflected the grave and enduring consequences of multiple injuries, including
devastating urological damage with permanent incontinence, severe orthopaedic trauma, a
mild traumatic brain injury with chronic subdural haematoma and profound psychosocial
sequelae characterised by depression, disability-related stigma and social isolation.
[17] Counsel for the defendant submitted that, on a proper reading of the orthopaedic
[17] Counsel for the defendant submitted that, on a proper reading of the orthopaedic
report in the present matter, the plaintiff has essentially recovered from his injuries and there
is no indication that further surgical intervention is anticipated. The thrust of the argument
was that, in light of the relatively “mild” head injury and the apparent orthopaedic recovery, a
comparatively modest award would be appropriate. In support of this, she referred the Court
to Sithole v Road Accident Fund (35916/18) [2023] ZAGPPHC 252, where the court
awarded R750,000.00 for general damages to a plaintiff who had sustained a brain injury
with a GCS of 13/15, permanent hearing loss, and significant scarring. Counsel argued that
since the injuries in the present matter are less debilitating than those in Sithole, the award
should be scaled down accordingly.
ANALYSIS
[18] The plaintiff sustained a serious femoral fracture requiring operative fixation with
titanium elastic nails, followed by a second procedure to remove the implants after about
twenty months. He also suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, with a GCS of 14/15, and was
hospitalised for seven days. There were additional soft -tissue and neurological injuries,
including facial abrasions and a CN VI palsy. The orthopaedic evidence confirms permanent
scarring of the knee, which constitutes a disfiguring feature relevant to general damages.
[19] The uncontested evidence further demonstrates that the plaintiff continues to suffer
significant residual sequelae: persistent weekly headaches, ongoing leg pain, limitations in
standing and walking, reduced stamina, and psychological difficulties , including irritability,
anger, concentration problems, nightmares and intrusive recollections. His educational history
is characterised by repeated failures from Grade 6 onwards, culminating in the abandonment
of mainstream schooling in favour of vocational training. While it would be simplistic to
attribute every academic setback solely to the accident, the expert evidence and the timing of
the decline support a conclusion that the traumatic brain injury and its sequelae materially
contributed to his scholastic difficulties.
[20] Importantly, the medical records have shown that the label “mild” in “mild traumatic
brain injury” is a clinical shorthand and does not necessarily correlate with the seriousness of
the functional impact on a particular individual. This accords with the observation in TDT
obo TGS v Road Accident Fund (RAF17/2019) [2024] ZANWHC 270 (31 October 2024 ),
that courts must look beyond the technical classification to the concrete effect on the
that courts must look beyond the technical classification to the concrete effect on the
claimant’s life.
[21] On any realistic view, the plaintiff’s life trajectory has been altered. His childhood and
adolescence have been marked by pain, repeated medical interventions, academic frustration
and psychological distress. He faces the prospect of living with chronic headaches, residual
physical limitations and the enduring consequences of interrupted education.
[22] The law does not compensate for misfortune as such; it compensates proven harm. In
this case, the plaintiff’s physical, psychological and educational harm has been clearly
established on the evidence before the Court.
Award
[23] In determining a just and equitable award for general damages, I take into account:
23.1 The nature and extent of the orthopaedic injury and its surgical management, including
permanent scarring.
23.2 The mild traumatic brain injury and its ongoing sequelae.
23.3 The plaintiff’s persistent headaches, functional limitations and emotional difficulties.
23.4 His young age at the time of the collision and the disruption to his schooling and
development.
23.5 The guidance afforded by comparable awards such as Smit, Brouwer, and more recent
decisions in this Division and elsewhere, appropriately adjusted for inflation and differences
in factual matrices.
23.6 The principles articulated in Senyasamore obo KOS v RAF and Viller NO obo Ganenang
v RAF , as cited above, namely that general damages must be fair, grounded in the actual
impact of the injuries and respectful of the claimant’s dignity, are principles that must
consistently be borne in mind when quantifying general damages. They serve as a constant
check to ensure that any award is not mechanical or purely comparative, but is tailored to the
claimant’s lived experience and thus reflects a just and equitable assessment of the harm
suffered.
[24] The defendant placed reliance on Sithole v Road Accident Fund , in which an amount
of R750 000 .00 was awarded in respect of a brain injury (GCS 13/15) coupled with hearing
loss. That authority is, however, distinguishable. In the present matter, the plaintiff was an
eleven-year-old minor who, in addition to a mild traumatic brain injury, sustained a fractured
femur necessitating two separate surgical procedures, namely the insertion and subsequent
removal of titanium elastic nails, and has been left with permanent surgical scarring
removal of titanium elastic nails, and has been left with permanent surgical scarring
measuring approximately 8 cm. The cumulative effect of these injuries on a vulnerable child
is materially more severe than the sequelae in Sithole.
[25] In determining an appropriate award, this Court has carefully considered the
authorities relied upon by both the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant’s reliance on
Sithole v Road Accident Fund [2023] ZAGPPHC 355 (28 July 2023), where R750 000.00
was awarded for a concussive head injury (GCS 13/15) with associated hearing loss and
psychological sequelae, provides a useful point of departure, but remains distinguishable for
the reasons already stated above. By contrast, the plaintiff’s reliance on Smit v Road Accident
Fund and Senyasamore obo KOS v Road Accident Fund reflects an approach where higher
awards are made in circumstances involving a combination of head injury and lasting
functional impairment, particularly in respect of minor children whose developmental
trajectory has been adversely affected.
[26] This approach finds further support in C.D.S obo K.O.S v Road Accident Fund
(RAF583/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 81, where the Court awarded R1 800 000.00 in general
damages to a young child who sustained a head injury (GCS 11/15) with associated
neurocognitive and behavioural impairments, chronic pain, and post -traumatic stress. The
Court recognised the profound and lasting impact of such injuries on a child’s development
and learning ability.
[27] In the present matter, the plaintiff’s injuries must be viewed holistically. The
combination of a mild traumatic brain injury, significant orthopaedic trauma requiring
surgical intervention, ongoing pain, functional limitations, visible scarring, and persisting
neurological sequelae distinguishes this case from the lower range of awards. At the same
time, the Court remains mindful that comparable cases serve only as guidelines, and that the
award must be fair to both parties. In the exercise of its discretion, and having regard to all
relevant factors, this Court is satisfied that an award in the upper-middle range is justified.
Issues
[28] In the present matter, the plaintiff is a young child who sustained not only a mild
[28] In the present matter, the plaintiff is a young child who sustained not only a mild
traumatic brain injury, but also a fractured femur requiring surgical intervention, with
ongoing pain, functional limitations, and visible scarring. In addition, the presence of a left
cranial nerve VI palsy, together with a GCS score of 14/15, reflects a persisting neurological
deficit which further affects the plaintiff’s quality of life. These combined injuries, viewed in
light of the plaintiff’s developmental stage, justify an award higher than that in Sithole, while
remaining within the bounds of fairness and consistency with comparable cases.
[29] Having regard to all the circumstances, including the passage of time since the award
in Sithole, the guidance provided by comparable authorities, and the particular long -term
sequelae in this matter, this Court is satisfied that an award of R1 100 000.00 (one million
one hundred thousand rand) for general damages is fair and reasonable. Such an award avoids
both extravagance and undue parsimony and reflects a balanced and equitable response to the
harm suffered. No monetary award can restore the plaintiff’s childhood or fully reverse the
consequences of the collision; the law can only, in a limited way, acknowledge the suffering
endured and provide a measure of restitution.
Order
I make the following order:
1. The defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of R1 100 000.00 in respect of
general damages.
2. Interest on the aforesaid amount shall run at the prescribed legal rate from 14 days after
the date of this order to the date of final payment.
3. The issues relating to loss of earning capacity are separated in terms of Rule 33(4) and
stand over for later determination after the plaintiff has complied with the directive
concerning the submission of school reports and the revised educational psychology
report.
4. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s taxed or agreed party -and-party costs in
respect of the general -damages portion of the claim, such costs to include the
qualifying, reservation and, if applicable, attendance fees of the plaintiff’s expert
witnesses whose reports were admitted into evidence
___________________________
T. TSAUTSE
ACTING JUDGE
NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff: Adv M. P Ramela
For the Defendant: Adv N. F. Mathebula