Konza v Road Accident fund (012971/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 297 (25 February 2025)

Konza v Road Accident fund (012971/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 297 (25 February 2025)

The court found that the plaintiff was negligent by failing to keep the approaching vehicle in his vision and not ensuring that it would slow down and heed the stop sign before executing his right-hand turn. The evidence, including the plaintiff’s testimony and the nature of his injuries, supported the conclusion that the collision occurred on the left-hand side of his vehicle, consistent with a T-bone impact from the oncoming vehicle. The court rejected the version in the Officer’s Accident Report Form due to its creation a year after the accident and inconsistencies with the physical injuries sustained. Applying the principles of apportionment, the court held that the plaintiff...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 297
Parties
Plaintiff: Sibusiso Konza; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 February 2025
Case Number
012971/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Quantum Postponed
Outcome
Liability apportioned 75% to defendant and 25% to plaintiff; quantum postponed sine die.
Judges
Weideman
Legal Topics
Road Accident Liability, Apportionment of Negligence, Right Hand Turn Collision, Rule 33 4 Separation
Delict Road Accident Liability Apportionment of Negligence Right Hand Turn Collision Rule 33 4 Separation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sibusiso Konza

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated From Quantum; Quantum Postponed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was negligent in executing a right-hand turn at the intersection.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is liable for damages arising from the collision.
  3. 3 What apportionment of liability is appropriate given the facts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was negligent by failing to keep the approaching vehicle in his vision and not ensuring that it would slow down and heed the stop sign before executing his right-hand turn. The evidence, including the plaintiff’s testimony and the nature of his injuries, supported the conclusion that the collision occurred on the left-hand side of his vehicle, consistent with a T-bone impact from the oncoming vehicle. The court rejected the version in the Officer’s Accident Report Form due to its creation a year after the accident and inconsistencies with the physical injuries sustained. Applying the principles of apportionment, the court held that the plaintiff...

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned 75% to defendant and 25% to plaintiff; quantum postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application to lead evidence on affidavit is granted.
  • The plaintiff's application in terms of Rule 33(4) to separate liability and quantum and to postpone quantum sine die is granted.