Makompe v Road Accident Fund (82559/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 661 (17 June 2025)

Makompe v Road Accident Fund (82559/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 661 (17 June 2025)

The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish liability under section 17(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The evidence presented was inconsistent regarding the time, place, and circumstances of the accident. The plaintiff did not confirm the statutory affidavit under section 19(f), and there was no evidence that all required documents were provided to the defendant. The medical and police records contained discrepancies that undermined the plaintiff's version. The pleadings did not allege that the defendant was liable in terms of the Act, and the plaintiff failed to prove the enforceability of the claim. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 661
Parties
Plaintiff: Mosimaneotsile Lawrence Makompe; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2025
Case Number
82559/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Liability Only; Quantum Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
Judges
Retief
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Enforceability of Claim, Pleading Requirements, Burden of Proof
Civil Procedure Land and Property Road Accident Fund Act Enforceability of Claim Pleading Requirements Burden of Proof

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mosimaneotsile Lawrence Makompe

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Liability Only; Quantum Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff proved the pleaded facts necessary to establish liability under section 17(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff complied with statutory requirements for enforceability of the claim, including section 19(f) affidavit and provision of relevant documents.
  3. 3 Whether inconsistencies in evidence and documentation preclude a finding of liability against the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish liability under section 17(1)(b) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The evidence presented was inconsistent regarding the time, place, and circumstances of the accident. The plaintiff did not confirm the statutory affidavit under section 19(f), and there was no evidence that all required documents were provided to the defendant. The medical and police records contained discrepancies that undermined the plaintiff's version. The pleadings did not allege that the defendant was liable in terms of the Act, and the plaintiff failed to prove the enforceability of the claim. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.