IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
MPUMALANGA DIVISION, MIDDELBURG
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED YES/NO
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
03/09/2026
DATE
FREDDY THABISO SHOROMA
And
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
CASE NO: 1714/ 2024
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
Delivered : This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties' legal representatives by email . The date for hand down is deemed to
be 03 September 2026.
2
JUDGMENT
Phahlamohlaka J
[1] The plaintiff, Freddy Thabiso Shoroma, claims damages against the Road
Accident Fund ( ‘defendant”) as a result of the injuries arising from a motor
vehicle accident that occurred on 27 March 2020.
[2] The merits and general damages have been settled, and the dispute now
centres on the defendant's special plea regarding the plaintiff's claim for past
and future loss of earnings . The defendant alleges non-compliance with
Section 24 of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 ("the Act") which provides
that:
“(1) A claim for compensation and accompany medical report under section 17
one shall-
(a) be set out in the prescribed form, which shall be completed in all its particulars;
(b) be sent by registered post or delivered by hand to the Fund at its principal,
branch or original office, or to the agent who in terms of Section 8 must handle
the claim, at the agent’s registered office or local branch office, and the Fund
or such agent sh all at the time of delivery by hand acknowledge receipt
thereof and the date of such receipt is in writing.
(2) (a) The medical report shall be completed on the prescribed form by the medical
practitioner who treated the deceased or injured person for the bodily injuries
sustained in the accident from which the claim arises, or by the Superintendent (or his
or her representative ) of the hospital where the deceased or injured person was
treated for such bodily injuries : provided that, If the medical practitioner or
Superintendent (or his or her representative) concerned fails to complete the medical
3
report on request within a reasonable time and it appears that as a result of the
passage of time the claim con cerned may become prescribed, the medical report
may be completed by any other medical practitioner who has fully satisfied himself
or herself regarding the cause of death or the nature and treatment of the bodily
injuries in respect of which the claim is made.”
[3] The plaintiff lodged a claim with the RAF on 18 May 2023, which included
a claim for past and future loss of earnings. The defendant raised a special
plea, asserting that the plaintiff failed to indicate a claim for loss of earnings in
the RAF1 form and thus cannot enforce such a claim.
[4] The defendant further contends that the plaintiff's lodgement was non-
compliant and that objections were raised in writing.
[5] The Supreme Court of Appeal in Nonkwali v RAF1 held that:
“[9] The effect of this finding cannot be articulated better than Corbett JA did in
Evins v Shield Insurance Co Ltd 1980 (2) SA 814 (A). There, the court dealing with the
concept of a single course of action in the context of prescription with regard to the
amendment of the particulars the plaintiffs claim as originally pleaded by him, set
said:
‘Where the plaintiff seeks by way of amendment to augment his claim for damages,
he will be precluded from doing so by prescription if the new claim is based upon a
new course of action and the relevant prescriptive period has run, but not if it was
part a nd parcel of the original cause of action and merely represents a fresh
quantification of the original claim or the addition of a further item of damages.’
1 Nonkwali v RAF1 [2008] ZASCA 3 at para 10
4
a plaintiff's claim under the Act is a single, indivisible cause of action, and the
various heads of damages are not separate claims.
[6] Closer to home, Mangena AJ of this Division dealt with same issue in
Mthimkhulu v Road Accident Fund2 where he stated the following:
“I fully align myself with the above sentiments. This is in line with the ‘once and for all
rule’ which requires a party with a single course of action to claim in one and the
same action whatever remedies the law accords him. The rationale underlying the
rule is that, if a cause of action has previously been fully litigated between the parties,
then a subsequent attempt by the one to proceed against the other on the same
course for the same relief can be met by an exception rei judicatae vel litis finitiae.
The rationale in our law is to prevent inextricable difficulties arising from discomfort or
conflicting decisions due to the same suit being a ired more than once in different
judicial proceedings or actions. The rule has its origins in considerations of public policy
which requires that there should be attempts set to litigate and that an accused
person or defendant should not be twice harassed in respect of the course same
course...”
[7] I fully align myself with the views expressed in the judgments I referred to
above. The law in this regard is settled, that compliance with section 24 of the
RAF Act does not require that the plaintiff ought to submit a claim form for
every head of damages they intend to pursue. In my view, the fact that the
2 2608/2024) [2026] ZAMPMBHC 27 (11 March 2026) at para [15]
5
plaintiff did not include one head of damage in the claim form is not a bar to
pursue that head at a later stage.
[8] The plaintiff lodged a claim for loss of earnings by registered post and
received an objection from the defendant. The defendant's special plea is
based on the alleged failure to indicate this head of damage in the RAF1
form.
[9] The legal position, as established by the authorities above, is that the
failure to specify a head of damage in the RAF1 form does not bar the
plaintiff from claiming it in court, provided it arises from the same cause of
action.
[10] in my view, the defendant's reliance on procedural non-compliance is
misplaced. I cannot find any authority that supports the defendant’s
contention.
[11] However, the plaintiff still bears the burden of proving the quantum of
loss of earnings with admissible evidence. The defendant has raised concerns
about the sufficiency of such evidence, including lack of collateral
information and documentary proof, but this will only be dealt with at trial.
[12] After having considered the relevant authorities, it is my considered view
that the defendant’s special plea is meritless and therefore stands to be
dismissed.
Order
[13] In the result I make the following order:
14.1 The defendant's special plea is dismissed.
14.2 The defendant is ordered to pay costs including costs of counsel to
be taxed on scale B.
Appearances
For the plain tiff:
Instructed by:
Email:
Defendant:
Instructed by:
Email:
Date judgmen t reserved:
K F PHAHLAMOHLAKA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
MPUMALANGA DIVISION, MIDDELBURG
Adv Mathews
Mabuza Magad ine Inc.
info @mabuzamagad ine .coza
Mr Mkans i
State Attorney
CaswellM2 @raf.co.za
30 April 2026
6