Makhathini v Road Accident Fund (21/2000) [2001] ZASCA 120; [2002] 1 All SA 413 (A); 2002 (1) SA 511 (SCA) (14 November 2001)

Makhathini v Road Accident Fund (21/2000) [2001] ZASCA 120; [2002] 1 All SA 413 (A); 2002 (1) SA 511 (SCA) (14 November 2001)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Road Traffic Collision Report, containing the deceased driver’s statement about his speed, constituted hearsay and double hearsay evidence. However, after weighing the statutory factors under section 3(1)(c) of the Evidence Amendment Act, including the nature and reliability of the evidence, the circumstances of its recording, the inability to call the original declarant, and the interests of justice, the Court found that the report should have been admitted. The Court further found that, on the totality of admissible evidence, the insured driver was negligent: he drove at an excessive speed given the road conditions and the presence of...

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 120
Parties
Appellant: Sibongile Wendy Makhathini; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 November 2001
Case Number
21/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Absolution From the Instance in the High Court; Liability Phase Only
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of absolution from the instance set aside; respondent held liable for damages subject to further hearing on quantum.
Judges
Nienaber, Schutz, Navsa
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence, Road Accident Fund Act, Negligence, Double Hearsay, Vicarious Admissions
Civil Procedure Delict Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence Road Accident Fund Act Negligence Double Hearsay Vicarious Admissions

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sibongile Wendy Makhathini

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Absolution From the Instance in the High Court; Liability Phase Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Road Traffic Collision Report containing the deceased driver’s statement about his speed should be admitted as evidence under section 3(1)(c) of the Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988.
  2. 2 If admitted, whether the evidence establishes negligence on the part of the insured driver.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Road Traffic Collision Report, containing the deceased driver’s statement about his speed, constituted hearsay and double hearsay evidence. However, after weighing the statutory factors under section 3(1)(c) of the Evidence Amendment Act, including the nature and reliability of the evidence, the circumstances of its recording, the inability to call the original declarant, and the interests of justice, the Court found that the report should have been admitted. The Court further found that, on the totality of admissible evidence, the insured driver was negligent: he drove at an excessive speed given the road conditions and the presence of...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of absolution from the instance set aside; respondent held liable for damages subject to further hearing on quantum.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the Court below is set aside and replaced with a declaration that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff in her capacity as mother and guardian of the minor child, Mphathi Advice Makhathini, for damages suffered as a result of injuries sustained in the collision on 26 October 1993.