2
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________ ______
GUMEDE AJ
1. The Plaintiff, Ms Thembelihle Recardo Manzini, an adult female born on 4
September 1991, instituted action against the Defendant, the Road Accident
Fund (“the Fund”), for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision that
occurred on 3 October 2021 on or near the R40 Public Road, Hoedspruit,
Mpumalanga Province. The Plaintiff was a passenger in the insured vehicle at
the time of the collision and was 30 years of age at the time of the collission.
2. The Fund accepted liability to compensate the Plaintiff for 100% of her agreed
or proven damages, and issued an undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of
the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 in respect of the Plaintiff’s future
accident-related medical and hospital expenses. The Fund also tendered the
sum of R900 000.00 in respect of general damages. This amount was accepted
by the plaintiff.
3. The only issue remaining for determination is the claim for past and future loss
of earnings . In her amended particulars of claim the Plaintiff claims R500
000.00 in respect of past loss of earnings and an amount of R11 000 000.00 in
respect of future loss of earnings.
3
THE EVIDENCE
4. The plaintiff’s expert evidence was placed before me by way of affidavit in terms
of Rule 38(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court .
5. The evidence is that the plaintiff sustained a left acetabular fracture with
extension into the pelvic ring and an inferior rami fracture. She was hospitalised
for approximately two months and treated conservatively with no surgical
intervention.
6. Dr J Sibanyoni, orthopaedic surgeon, records a healed left acetabular fracture
with non -union, cortical irregularity, a subchondral cyst and post -traumatic
arthritis, and assessed the Plaintiff’s Whole Person Impairment at 34%,
qualifying as a serious injury under the narrative test. He opines that the Plaintiff
will probably retire approximately 15 years earlier than the norm.
7. Dr F Sithole (obstetrician and gynaecologist) and Dr Qulu (urologist) confirm
chronic left hip and inguinal pain, a fixed flexion deformity necessitating delivery
by caesarean section, and mixed urinary incontinence consequent upon the
pelvic injury. Mrs G Bokaba, clinical psychologist, diagnoses post -traumatic
stress disorder together with chronic physical pain.
8. Mrs G Moila, occupational therapist, is of the opinion that the plaintiff no longer
has the physical capacity for medium to heavy work (such as farm and packing
work) and is restricted to light -category work, rendering her a less competitive
candidate in the open labour market.
9. The record shows that notwithstanding her injuries the plaintiff has continued to
pursue her studies . She enrolled at White River Technical College and
completed the N2 to N6 theoretical modules in Electrical Engineering and is
completing the in-service component of that qualification.
4
10. Mrs Kheshwa, the industrial psychologist, concludes that the plaintiff has been
rendered permanently unemployable. That conclusion does not alig n with the
undisputed fact that the plaintiff has successfully completed the theoretical
component of a recognised electrical engineering qualification and continues
with the process of completing her in -service training. I am not persuaded that
conclusion is a more probable outcome.
11. in my view, the proper approach is not to award compensation on the basis of
total unemployability, but rather a diminished capacity to compete in the open
labour market.
APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
12. It is trite that a plaintiff claiming loss of earning capacity must establish both the
physical disability relied upon and that it will probably result in actual patrimonial
loss.
13. There can be no precise mathematical computation in the assessment of
damages of this nature, I have only my discretion to rely on to arrive at the best
estimate of the plaintiff’s loss (Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO
1984 (1) SA 98 (A) ). There is also no fixed formula to determine contingency
deductions.
Past loss of earnings
14 Applying the normal contingency of 5% to both the pre - and post -morbid
actuarial values of past income (uninjured: R304 029.00; injured: R60 568.00),
the net past loss is calculated as follows:
Net past loss of earnings: R 288 827.55 less R 57 539.60 = R 231 287.95.
Future loss of earnings
15. Having regard to the plaintiff’s demonstrated residual earning capacity and her
suitability for light -category work I am unable to accept the “unemployable”
7
APPEARANCES
For the Plaintiff Mr PL Magagula
Instructed by J Mnisi and Associates Inc
For the Defendant Ms G Mokoena
Instructed by the State Attorney, Nelspruit
Heard on 30 March 2026
Delivered 18 August 2026