Makosa v Road Accident Fund (002641/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 201 (14 February 2025)

Makosa v Road Accident Fund (002641/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 201 (14 February 2025)

The court found that the plaintiff, although a foreign national, had provided sufficient documentation to justify calculation of future loss of income according to South African income scales. However, significant uncertainties existed regarding his ability to remain in South Africa and maintain employment as a general labourer, particularly given the physical nature of the work and the competitive labour market. The actuarial calculation included discretionary elements such as overtime and bonuses, which warranted a higher contingency deduction. The court determined that a 50% contingency deduction was appropriate to address these uncertainties. After applying the deduction and...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 201
Parties
Plaintiff: Makosa Pieter; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 February 2025
Case Number
002641/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum Determination After Partial Settlement on Liability
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for loss of income partially upheld; general damages postponed sine die.
Judges
Weideman
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Loss of Income, Contingency Deduction, Foreign Claimant, Rule 38 Evidence
Civil Procedure Delict Road Accident Fund Act Loss of Income Contingency Deduction Foreign Claimant Rule 38 Evidence

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Makosa Pieter

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum Determination After Partial Settlement on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff, a foreign national, is entitled to claim future loss of income under South African law.
  2. 2 What contingency deduction is appropriate given uncertainties regarding the plaintiff's future employment and residency status.
  3. 3 How to calculate loss of income considering discretionary elements such as overtime and bonuses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff, although a foreign national, had provided sufficient documentation to justify calculation of future loss of income according to South African income scales. However, significant uncertainties existed regarding his ability to remain in South Africa and maintain employment as a general labourer, particularly given the physical nature of the work and the competitive labour market. The actuarial calculation included discretionary elements such as overtime and bonuses, which warranted a higher contingency deduction. The court determined that a 50% contingency deduction was appropriate to address these uncertainties. After applying the deduction and...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for loss of income partially upheld; general damages postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application in terms of Rule 38(2) is granted.
  • The defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the net amount of R1 198 200 in respect of loss of income.