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
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: 16264/2022
In the matter between:
In the matter between:
ADV K MASHABA obo
NKOSANA MOTLHALE Plaintiff
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant
Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their legal
representatives by e -mail and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
Caselines. The date and for hand-down is deemed to be 3 September 2026.
Summary: A claim for loss of earning capacity. Injuries not serious enough to
affect the earning capacity of the injured. Claim for loss of earning capacity
not sustainable. The evidence of the experts is unreliable and is based on
unreliable evidence. The claim for loss of earning capacity and income falls to
be dismissed.
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
______________ _________________________
DATE SIGNATURE
2
JUDGMENT
MOSHOANA, J
Introduction
[1] This is an action instituted by a curator-ad-litem on behalf of the injured Mr
Nkosana Motlhale (Mr Motlhale) . Upon being instituted, this action was defended by
the defendant, the Road Accident Fund (RAF). As it has become customary on the
appointed trial date, the RAF failed to appear. As such, this action proceeded in
terms of rule 39(1) of the Uniform Rules of the High Court. Evidence was admitted in
terms of rule 38(2) of the Uniform Rules following the granting of an application for
such an admission.
Background facts and evidence
[2] On 08 October 2018, a 19-year-old, Mr Motlhale, was a passenger in a motor
vehicle bearing registration letters and numbers X[...] 5[...] G[...] when the motor
vehicle lost control and overturned at N12, a kilometre away from Soweto/Lenasia
off-ramp.
[3] Consequently, Mr Motlhale was injured and admitted at Chris Hani
Baragwanath Academic Hospital (CHBAH) at around 16:08pm. For the purpose of
this judgment, on admission, Mr Motlhale presented with bruised right side of the
head. He did not present with any headaches or loss of consciousness. His GCS
was 15/15. The bruise over the right temporal forehead was 7 x 5 cm. On 15 October
2018 a non -contrast CT Brain scan findings revealed that there was undisplaced
linear squamous right temporal bone. No acute intra -cranial injury was revealed. I
interpose to mention that the fracture involved herein is a thin hairline crack in the
flat, upper-outer portion of the right side of the skull where the bone pieces have not
3
moved out of alignment. Generally, undisplaced skull fractures often heal on their
own over time as the bone knits back together.
[4] On 08 October 2018, Mr Motlhale was discharged . It is apparent from the
clinical records that he was seen again on 09 and 15 October 2019. On those days
the clinical records revealed that the abrasion on the head was healing well and that
there was no intracranial pathology noted. Panado and Tramal tablets were
prescribed to be taken over a period of two weeks. On 14 May 2019, Mr Motlhale
was admitted at Leratong Hospital. He was discharged on 18 June 2019. The clinical
records of Leratong Hospital are very difficult to decipher and only contain discharge
summary. According to Leratong Hospital, the final diagnosis as of 18 June 2019
was recorded as “ Psychosis to head injury comorbid cannabis abuse ”. Atypical
antipsychotic medication of Risperdal 3mg was prescribed for Mr Motlhale.
[5] Relevant to the suggested head injury, on 14 December 2021, Mr Motlhale
consulted with Dr Du Plessis, a qualified Neurosurgeon. Dr Du Plessis interviewed
Mr Motlhale and his mother. In his examination, he noted faint scars of abrasions in
the right temporal area. On the day, he referred Mr Motlhale for Magnetic Resonance
Imaging (MRI) scan. The results were that no macroscopically visible post -traumatic
intracranial abnormalities were shown. This simply meant that there were no
structural brain changes resulting from the head trauma. Dr Du Plessis then formed
the following opinion:
“Based on the history provided by the claimant and his mother, the clinical records
and the impression gained on examination, he sustained mild concussion in the
accident.”
[6] Dr Du Plessis could not find focal brain injury nor any possibility of secondary
brain damage. This meant that there was no delayed damage that occurs weeks
after the initial head trauma, nor any damage of the specific or localised area of the
after the initial head trauma, nor any damage of the specific or localised area of the
brain. Dr Du Plessis also opined that Mr Motlhale ha d not suffered any neurological
deficit as a result of the accident. He opined that Mr Motlhale had developed
schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is caused by a mix of genes, chemical imbalances and
structural differences. According to Dr Du Plessis, the accident did not cause a loss
or impairment of normal brain. Regarding loss of earning capacity, Dr Du Plessis
4
specifically directed that to psychiatric conditions as opposed to neurological
deficiencies.
[7] On 10 June 2025, Dr Du Plessis again consulted with Mr Motlhale and his
mother. At that stage , he was favoured with reports from Dr Mazabow, Dr Naidoo
and Ms Greef. This time around Dr Du Plessis opined as follows:
“Based on the neurosurgical criteria that are normally used to quantify the severity of
a brain injury, he sustained a mild concussive brain injury in the accident. He did not
sustain a focal brain injury or a secondary brain injury in the accident.”
[8] On 3 November 2025, this Court , after considering the injuries sustained by
Mr Motlhale, expressed dissatisfaction on the question whether Mr Motlhale suffered
head injuries that are serious enough to impact on his earning capacity. This Court
directed that Dr Du Plessis must appear before it in order to clarify the extent of the
head injuries. Indeed, on 26 August 2026, the Court heard evidence from Dr Du
Plessis. Briefly, his evidence was that he still maintains that Mr Motlhale sustained
mild concussive brain injury. The collateral information and the literature he
consulted did not sway him otherwise. He accepted that generally, mild concussive
brain injury does not have long term neurological cognitive defect effects. However,
his views changed after considering the Article by Dr Daryl Fujii and Mr Iqbal
Ahmed.1 He testified that psychosis may be caused by various factors including
abuse of cannabis. Taking into account the criteria used to grade the severity of the
brain injury, he testified that Mr Motlhale almost did not make it to mild concussive
brain injury.
[9] Regarding the sequelae, he suggested two possibilities for the onset of
psychosis. Firstly, mild concussive brain injury and secondly, the stresses of the
accident itself. Relying on the article of Dr Fujii and Mr Ahmed, he discovered, after
many years of practice , that a mild concussive brain injury can cause permanent
many years of practice , that a mild concussive brain injury can cause permanent
psychosis. He accepted that there are conflicting views in the literature. He further
testified that from the clinical records only, it is difficult to grade the severity of the
head injury . There was no evidence of loss of consciousness, but because Mr
1 Fujii and Ahmed “Characteristics of Psychotic Disorder Due to Traumatic Brain Injury: An Analysis of Case
Studies in the Literature” (2002) Journal of Neuropsychiatric and Clinical Neurosciences 130.
5
Motlhale did not remember certain portions of the events, he opined that he may
have lost consciousness. This was based on the say -so of the collateral witnesses
being Mr Motlhale and his mother. He could not have regard to ambulance records,
particularly on the state of consciousness of Mr Motlhale before reaching the
Hospital. Those records were not made available to him. He agreed that those
records would have been of some significance.
Analysis
[10] In this judgment, the Court shall only pay specific attention to the loss of
earning capacity claim, given the injuries revealed in the clinical records. This Court
takes a view that since Mr Motlhale only suffered abrasion and bruises, the head
injury is not as severe as to render Mr Motlhale to lose his earning capacity.
[11] In Michael and Another v Linksfield Park Clinic and Anothe r,2 the Court
expressed that an expert opinion carries weight only to the extent it is grounded in
facts that are common cause, established by evidence, or capable of being proven.
The opinion by Dr Du Plessis that Mr Motlhale suffered mild concussive head injury
is not grounded on any established evidence. In the first report, he based that
opinion on the history provided by the mother and Mr Motlhale, the clinical records
and his impressions. Clearly, the evidence of the mother and Mr Motlhale cannot be
objective and it is prone to exaggerations. On his own version, it is difficult to grade
severity on the basis of the clinical records alone.
[12] In his second report, he based the same opinion on neurosurgical criteria that
is normally used to quantify severity. In the Article of Dr Fujii and Dr Ahmed, on which
Dr Du Plessis placed heavy reliance, the following was recorded:
“Severity of TBI was based on criteria set by the Mild Traumatic Injury Committee of
the Head Injury Interdisciplinary Special Interest Group of the American Congress of
Rehabilitation Medicine (ACRM) .3 According to their criteria, a head injury is
Rehabilitation Medicine (ACRM) .3 According to their criteria, a head injury is
considered mild if the duration of loss of consciousness (LOC) is 30 minutes or less
and moderate to severe if LOC is longer than 30 minutes.”
2 Michael and Another v Linksfield Park Clinic and Another 2001 (3) SA 1188 (SCA) para 34-36.
3 J Head Trauma Rehabil (1993) 86.
6
[13] Dr Du Plessis did not obtain any evidence of LOC at the scene of the
accident. The mother was not at the scene she only arrived at the Hospital after the
accident. There were no ambulance records. The Hospital records do not bear him
out in that regard . There was no LOC recorded in the clinical records. It is thus
difficult for this Court to accept his opinion that because Mr Motlhale was unable to
account for certain portions of the events, he must have lost consciousness. This is
nothing but conjectu re. Of critical importance, his opinion is contradicted by Dr
Mazabow, a Neuropsychologist. Dr Mazabow examined Mr Motlhale on 7 July 2022.
At the time of the examination, like Dr Du Plessis, he was furnished with the
Hospital records and consulted with both the patient and the mother. In his report, in
seeking to contradict the findings of Dr Du Plessis, Dr Mazabow stated the following:
“2.2.7. Dr du Plessis graded a mild concussion. An MRI brain scan is said to have
been normal, with no indication of a focal brain injury. However, Dr du Plessis was
not given the information that Mr Motlhale was confused and disorientated and
gave incorrect biographical data to the nursing staff (as well as incorrect details
of the accident) which would indicate that his mental status was in fact altered at the
time.
2.2.8 It appears that Dr du Plessis also did not have sight of the CT scan report,
which states that a skull fracture was sustained (involving the right temporal bone).
[14] Clearly, this information of confusion and disorientation emanated from the
patient’s mother. As to why the mother could give conflicting account, it is unclear to
this Court. According to Dr Du Plessis, the mother told him this:
“His mother says that she saw him later that afternoon. He was asleep initially. He
was not confused when she woke him up…”
[15] From the first report of Dr Du Plessis, there are indications that he had sight of
[15] From the first report of Dr Du Plessis, there are indications that he had sight of
the CT scan. He commented that the radiological report showed no intracranial
pathology. All the above notwithstanding, Dr Mazabow commented as follows:
“2.3.1 The above information is of significance blow to his head, giving rise to a right
temporal bone fracture (according to the radiological report); a period of dense/total
post traumatic amnesia of 3 to 4 hours, followed by discontinuous memory (the
duration of which is not possible to determine); disorientation evident to the
7
mother at the time of her arrival several hours after the accident; initial
confusion evidenced in his having reportedly given the incorrect information to
the hospital staff (including biographical details, such as his name and
address, and having incorrectly described the accident as a pedestrian vehicle
accident); an initial Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15/15 (which is incorrect in light
of the above information ); alteration in his mental status reported by the mother
over several days following the accident; and no focal brain injury evident on the
initial CT brain scan or on the later MRI brain scan.
2.3.2 This information, taken as a whole, indicates that the head injury sustained
was at least mild- to –moderate and more likely moderate.”
[16] It is very surprising to note that Dr Mazabow comments that the GCS is
incorrect. What then was the correct GCS , he does not suggest at all. Given the
contrast of collateral information from the same source, it also follows that the
grading by Dr Mazabow is unreliable.
[17] An interesting opinion, again based on the narration by Mr Motlhale’s mother
in an inconsistent manner, by Dr Naidoo the Psychiatrist was that Mr Motlhale
sustained at the very least mild complicated traumatic brain injury. Contrary to Dr Du
Plessis and Dr Mazabow , Dr Naidoo opined that clinically, Mr Motlhale presented
with mild neurocognitive disorder due to traumatic brain injury. Neurocognitive
disorder is caused by, amongst others acquired brain damage, structural changes or
cellular degeneration that affect thinking, memory, and mental function. It must be
accepted that cannabis abuse does cause damage to the brain function which leads
to lasting problems with memory, attention and thinking. At Leratong hospital in 2019,
almost a year after the accident it was recorded that psychosis was comorbid
cannabis abuse. Medically, comorbidity is the simultaneous presence of two or more
distinct medical or psychological conditions in a single person.
distinct medical or psychological conditions in a single person.
[18] According to Dr Fujii and Dr Ahmed, diagnostic difficulties hinge on two
aspects. Firstly, establishing that psychosis is a direct physiological consequence of
traumatic brain injury (TBI). Secondly, determining that the psychosis is not due to
8
another mental disorder. Several studies suggest that individuals who develop a
psychosis after TBI had generally sustained moderate to severe head injuries.4
[19] Dr Du Plessis has opined that Mr Motlhale is schizophrenic. According to Dr
Fujii and Dr Ahmed’s article , in people with schizophrenia it is often difficult to
determine if a psychotic condition is a direct physiological consequence of TBI or
even if TBI contributes to or exacerbates the psychotic process. Dr Fujii and Dr
Ahmed also opine that there may be multiple factors contributing to psychotic
symptoms for example a genetic risk, substance abuse, or other neurological
problems.
[20] That said, this Court must remark that the opinion of Dr Fujii and Dr Ahmed’s
article bears no evidentiary value to this Court . The Supre me Court of Yukon in
Wright v Yukon (Director of Public Safety and Investigations ),5 Chief Justice Duncan
placed reliance on Sordi v Sordi,6 where the Court stated:
“[141] … Candidly. I have always been troubled by the idea that the court should just
accept, at face value, the contents of academic articles submitted during argument,
or found by the court on its own. Unlike any person offered as an expert witness
during a trial, there is no opportunity to determine the de gree of expertise [if any] of
the author of the article, or to test the validity of the study, as it relates to the issues at
hand. In this post. The inquiry into Paediatric Pathology in Ontario world, it is my view
that trial judges should be very careful about incorporating social science articles into
judgments, unless they have been produced in an acceptable fashion during the
trial…”7
[21] The fact that Dr Du Plessis placed reliance on the Article of Dr Fujii, to support
his testimony that he has since learned, after many years of practice as a
Neurosurgeon, that mild trauma may lead to permanent psychosis, remains
unconvincing to this Court. It remains untestable given its source. For an expert
unconvincing to this Court. It remains untestable given its source. For an expert
testimony to be acceptable to a court, the testimony must be (a) relevant; (b)
necessary; (c) must involve special expertise; (d) reliable; and (e) admissible. To the
4 Fujii and Ahmed “Psychosis secondary to traumatic brain injury ” (1996) Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychology
Behave Neurological 133.
5 Wright v Yukon (Director of Public Safety and Investigations) 2023 YKSC 77.
6 Sordi v Sordi 2010 ONSC 2344.
7 Para 141 of Yukon judgment
9
extent that Dr Du Plessis places evidentiary value on the Article, such constitutes
inadmissible hearsay evidence and remains unreliable. The same applies with
regard to the other Article that Dr Du Plessis placed reliance to bolster his testimony
i.e. “The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild
Traumatic Brain Injury”.8
[22] The Article by Dr Fujii and Dr Ahmed was concluded in the following manner:
“Our study is exploratory and descriptive , and thus the findings should be viewed
as preliminary . Its major limitations is the use of archival data that are subject to
biases in data collection . For an example, there should have been a selection bias
for more early -onset PDTBI cases because it would be easier to justify the
relationship between TBI and the onset of psychosis.
[23] Accordingly, there is no reliable and convincing evidence before this Court
that there is relationship between psychosis and mild concussive brain injury.
[24] That said, I now turn my attention to the report by the Educational
Psychologist Ms E Prinsloo. This Court find s it difficult to accept her postulations. As
a departure point, she has not provided any academic reports from grades 1 to 11 of
Mr Motlhale. That being so, an opinion that he was a low -average-to below average
performer is based on conjecture and only on grade 12 results. In 2017, Mr Motlhale
completed grade 12. At the time when he met the accident, he was not at any
institution of learning. As to why he was not at any institution of learning , such was
not investigated by Ms Prinsloo. There was speculative statement by Mr Prinsloo
that in 2017, 2018 and 2019, he could not have obtained a NAFSAS bursa ry. This is
a baseless speculation. Such information of not being in an institution of learning , in
the opinion of this Court, was a valuable information in order to make an informed
postulation. On the available evidence, he had entered the job market working for his
postulation. On the available evidence, he had entered the job market working for his
father for no pay. Ms Prinsloo in her report advanced an opinion she is not qualified
to advance that Mr Motlhale continued to recuperate at home.
[25] There is no tangible explanation offered as to why the whole of 2019, Mr
Motlhale did not enter any institution of learning. As to why he only decided to enter
8 Silverberg “ The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain
Injury” 2023 ACRM.
10
the institution of learning in 2020, there is no explanation offered. For reasons that
are not spelled out anywhere, in 2020, Mr Motlhale simply did not meet attendance
and was absent from the exams. In 2021, he repeated N4 of his studies in Business
Management. He passed all the four modules. As to why he managed to pass with
the alleged psychosis conditions no explanation is discernible from the report of Ms
Prinsloo. In 2022, he enroll ed for N5 and decided to discont inue in the middle of the
year. No academic records for the period he attended before discontinuing was
made available.
[26] Mr Motlhale informed Ms Prinsloo that he discontinued because he struggled
to cope with the content of the work and manage his elevated levels of anxiety. The
statement that he was not coping with the work was made in hollow. It would have
been reliable if it was backed with some academic record for that year he decided to
discontinue. On the available evidence, he enrolled at the beginning of the year and
midstride he discontinued. There must have been work done and assessed for that
year to demonstrate that he was n ot coping particularly after having coped the
previous year. In 2025 he instead entered the job market after having been inactive
for 2023 and 2024. The last medical attention that Mr Motlhale received was in 2019
at Leratong Hospital. In 2025, he told Dr Du Plessis that he was not readmitted for
psychotic symptoms. He had not started to smoke cannabis again. He informed Dr
Du Plessis that he has not attempted to further his studies due to financial
constraints. His only complaints then were headaches that occurs daily.
[27] In a follow -up with Dr Mazabow, in June 2025, there is an indication that he
failed all N5 subjects. This contradicts the information given to Ms Prinsloo. As
reported by Dr Mazabow, the bursary was withdrawn for 2022 because of his failure
to complete the first semester of 2022. Contrary to what was told to Dr Du Plessis on
to complete the first semester of 2022. Contrary to what was told to Dr Du Plessis on
10 June 2025 that he sleeps better, on 11 June 2025, the very following day, Dr
Mazabow was informed by the mother that N5 could not be completed because he
was tired in the mornings and had sleeping disturbances. Dr Naidoo only consulted
with him once in 2022 and there was no follow up.
[28] Turning back to Ms Prinsloo, she postulated that Mr Motlhale would have
completed N4-N6 and achieve NQF5. This postulation is poorly reasoned particularly
because she did not collate academic records from grade 1 to 11. The struggle to
11
cope with the content of the work is not supported by any academic record for that
half year or semester. The alleged anxiety levels are not medically supported. An
opinion that he will experience significant difficulties in pursuing any further studies is
based on nothing but the conflicting reports by Dr Du Plessis, Dr Mazabow and Dr
Naidoo. This Court has already pointed out difficulties with the opinions of the
experts in the field of head injuries. The fact that Motlhale abused cannabis for an
extended period of four years seem to be downplayed by all the experts. Leratong
Hospital in 2019 mentioned cannabis abuse as comorbid for psychosis.
[29] There is no clear evidence that the alleged poor performance educationally is
linked to the abrasion or bruises, or it is largely linked to the abuse of cannabis.
Syllogism suggests that as Mr Motlhale passed N4 modules with the conditions
present, had he not discontinued N5 studies for reasons better known to him he
would have passed N5 and N6 and reach ed his postulated NQF5. No tests were
presented to demonstrate that Mr Motlhale indeed stopped abusing cannabis in
October 2018 after the accident. Why , in 2019, the following year after the accident,
did Leratong Hospital comorbid psychosis with cannabis abuse if he had stopped in
2018. Accordingly, when regard is had to the less serious head injuries, as testified
by Dr Du Plessis before seeking to rely on Dr Fujii and Dr Ahmed Article, mild
concussion has no long-term neurological deficiency effects. The conclusions
reached by Dr Mazabow that there was moderate trauma is unsupported.
[30] This Court must conclude that the injuries sustained at the accident are
incapable of causing any conditions that would lead to permanent psychosis. On the
contrary, there is scientific evidence that substance abuse has a relationship with
psychosis. In any claim for loss of future earning capacity, two key questions arise;
psychosis. In any claim for loss of future earning capacity, two key questions arise;
namely (1) has the plaintiff’s earning capacity been impaired by his or her injuries;
and if so, what compensation should be awarded for the resulting financial harm that
will accrue over time .9 When Mr Motlhale saw Dr Du Plessis in 2025, his only
complaints were headaches. In Butler v Blaylock ,10 considering that complaints of
pain cannot easily be disproved, the Court said:
9 Dornan v Stephens 2019 BCSC 701 at para 94.
10 Butler v Blaylock [1981] BCJ at para 18.
12
“I am not stating any new principle when I say that the court should be exceedingly
careful when there is little or no objective evidence of continuing injury and when
complaints of pain persist for long periods extending beyond the normal or usual
recovery…”
[31] One of the consideration s when dealing with loss of earning capacity is
whether the plaintiff has been rendered less capable overall of earning income from
all types of employment and that he or she is less marketable. There is evidence that
Mr Motlhale gained employment in 2025 as a cleaner. He worked for two months.
According to his mother, he stopped employment because he did not enjoy the work.
Mr Motlhale informed Ms Prinsloo that he gained employment at a supermarket . He
could not cope with the physical requirements and he was regularly absent. He
subsequently left that employment.
[32] Mr Kobus Prinsloo, the Industrial Psychologist stated that as a post -morbid
scenario, Mr Motlhale will be unemployable in the open labour market, inclusive of
the informal sector, a self -employed trader, given his disorganised thinking and poor
decision-making and impaired judgment. Although this is conveniently pinned to the
abrasion and bruises, it is indeed so that cannabis abuse does affect thinking and
impairs judgment. Owing to Mr Motlhale gaining employment with Panda Mart in
Roodepoort, it is difficult to accept the opinion of Mr Prinsloo. Mr Motlhale left his
position at Panda Mart before the end of his probationary period. This must be the
employment he left because he could not cope with the physical requirements.
According to Ms Phooko, Manager at Panda Mart, she could not have confirmed
probation of Mr Motlhale because of the lack of consistency, commitment and ability
to cope with job demands. This is consistent with what Mr Motlhale informed Ms
Prinsloo. Nevertheless, Mr Motlhale could have exercised his labour rights against
Prinsloo. Nevertheless, Mr Motlhale could have exercised his labour rights against
the views of Ms Phooko. Of significance, Mr Motlhale was employable contrary to the
opinion of Mr Prinsloo.
13
[33] This Court is unable to disagree with the approach taken by the Northwest
High Court division in the matter of Phepheto v Road Accident Fund (Phepheto),11
where the Court stated amongst others, the following:
“[42] The plaintiff’s GCS, as is evident from the hospital records, was slightly
depressed for a period of 2 hours and 10 minutes after his admission at hospital.
This could be attributable to a number of reasons including medication administered
on scene. The plaintiff indicated to Bout that he can remember standing next to the
road and from that time onward he can only remember from when the ambulance
personnel were on the scene. The plaintiff reported to Smuts that he was
unconscious after the accident and woke up the next day in the hospital…
[43] Having regard to the aforesaid I am not convinced that the plaintiff sustained
a significant head injury or that reference to memory and concentration… will hinder
his ability to work in a sedentary environment even on a very basic level as
postulated by Doran…”
[34] Similar to the concerns raised in this judgment, the Court in Phepheto had the
following to say:
“[29] The court notes that Smuts simply accepted the plaintiff’s reporting that he
was unconscious and woke up the next day in hospital still confused, without
verifying that this was in fact so, had Smuts done this he would have been alerted to
the patient transfer form, which he had in his possession, and which indicated that
the plaintiff had a GCS of 15/15, 2 hours 10 minutes after his admission to hospital
and that he was alert and orientated.”
[35] In being critical to the approach of experts simply accepting the self -reporting
of patients, the Court in Phepheto placed reliance on various judgments 12 which are
also critical of the similar approach by experts . The injuries in Phepheto were
recorded as being scalp abrasion. In Phepheto Dr Smuts the Neurologist , with such
recorded as being scalp abrasion. In Phepheto Dr Smuts the Neurologist , with such
injuries after examining the plaintiff opined that the plaintiff sustained significant head
injury and was left with a mild to moderate brain injury. That notwithstanding, the
11 Phepheto v Road Accident Fund [2025] 1 All SA 458 (NWM).
12 Twine and another v Naidoo and another [2018] 1 All SA 297 (GJ); Ntombela v Road Accident Fund 2018 (4)
SA 486 (GJ); and Bee v Road Accident 2018 (4) 366 (SCA).
14
Court in Phepheto rejected a conclusion that the plaintiff is unemployable post the
accident.
[36] The Full Court of this Division in Adv Yvette Isaacs obo Niyaaz Ebrahim v
Road Accident Fund,13 held that:
“[8] … An expert is required to assist the court by laying out a factual basis for
his/her conclusions explaining his/her reasoning to the court. A court is required to
satisfy itself as to the expert’s correct reasoning. An expert’s opinion must be
underpinned by proper reasoning in order for a court to assess the cogency thereof.
Absent any reasoning the opinion becomes inadmissible.”
[37] This Court is not satisfied that the onset of psychosis has a relationship with
the abrasion and bruises on the head. If anything , the psychosis has a direct
relationship with cannabis abuse . As testified to , by Dr Du Plessis, mild concussion
has no long-term neurological defi ciency effects. His testimony in this regard is
supported by a litany of medical literature.14 Consequently, this Court is not satisfied
that the poor educational performance, albeit not clearly demonstrated by empirical
evidence, has any relationship to the mild head injuries sustained by Mr Motlhale in
the accident. There is no causal nexus established between the injuries sustained
and failure to reach NQ5 as postulated. As indicated above, there is no proper
explanation as to why Mr Motlhale passed all his modules in 2022, whilst being in the
same condition , he failed the modules in 2021 . If his condition was permanent, it
defies syllogism for him to pass the following year, when according to the experts his
condition was deteriorating over a period of time. There is no concrete evidence that
the discontinuation in 2022 midstride has any relationship with the injuries he
sustained in 2018. Sadly, Mr Motlhale was an abuser of cannabis as evidenced by
the records of 2019 held by Leratong Hospital . Ruling out cannabis abuse and
the records of 2019 held by Leratong Hospital . Ruling out cannabis abuse and
pinning his conditions of psychosis to the minor injuries on his head, which would
have healed a long time ago, seem illogical and not persuasive.
[38] For all the above reasons, I am constrained to make the following order:
Order
13 Adv Yvette Isaacs obo Niyaaz Ebrahim v Road Accident Fund Case A140/2025.
14 Traumatic Brain Injury 2023 Journal of Neurotrauma Traumatic Brain Injury 13.
15
1. The Defendant shall pay 100% (one hundred percent) of Mr
Motlhale’s proven damages.
2. The application in terms of Rule 38(2) is granted with no order as
to costs.
3. The claim for loss of earning capacity and future loss of income is
dismissed.
4. The Defendant indemnifies Mr Motlhale against any supplier’s
claim.
5. The Defendant is order ed to, furnish Mr Motlhale with a statutory
undertaking free from caveats and qualification, in terms of section 17
(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act for 100% (one hundred percent ) of
the costs of the future ac commodation of Mr Motlhale or supplying of
goods to Mr Motlhale arising out of Mr Motlhale’s injuries sustained in
the motor vehicle collision which gave rise to the action, after such
costs have been incurred and upon proof thereof.
6. The Defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s taxed or agreed costs on a
scale of party and party, such costs to include the costs of experts
employed as per case lines, inclusive of reports, addendum reports,
consultations and confirmatory affidavits. The costs of both the
plaintiff’s counsel, inclusive of preparation, appearance fees and heads
of argument, and those of the Curatrix ad litem to be allowed at scale B.
7. This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the determination of the issue
of General Damages.
____________________________
GN MOSHOANA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff: Mr A Maluleka
16
Instructed by: Savage Jooste & Adams Pretoria
For the Defendant: No appearance
Date of the hearing: 03 November 2025 and 26 August 2026
Date of judgment: 03 September 2026