Maroga and Another v Road Accident Fund (952/2024 ; 5644/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 48 (18 March 2025)

Maroga and Another v Road Accident Fund (952/2024 ; 5644/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 48 (18 March 2025)

The court held that in default judgment applications for damages arising from motor vehicle collisions, the provisions of section 1(1)(a) of the Apportionment of Damages Act apply. The court has discretion to hear oral evidence and must evaluate whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. In both cases, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZALMPPHC 48
Parties
Plaintiff: Jeremiah Lesedi Maroga; Plaintiff: Meriam Machete; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2025
Case Number
952/2024 ; 5644/2023
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment / Application for Default Judgment Under Rule 31(2)(a); Liability and Quantum Separated
Outcome
Default judgment granted against the defendant. The Road Accident Fund is liable for 30% of the first plaintiff's damages and 50% of the second plaintiff's damages. Quantum postponed sine die. Costs awarded to both plaintiffs.
Judges
G.C Muller
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Damages, Default Judgment, Personal Injury, Civil Procedure
Delict Road Accident Fund Act Contributory Negligence Apportionment of Damages Default Judgment Personal Injury Civil Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeremiah Lesedi Maroga

Plaintiff

Meriam Machete

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Default Judgment / Application for Default Judgment Under Rule 31(2)(a); Liability and Quantum Separated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Road Accident Fund is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of motor vehicle collisions.
  2. 2 Whether contributory negligence by the plaintiffs should reduce the damages awarded in default judgment applications.
  3. 3 Whether the court may apportion damages in default judgment proceedings under rule 31(2)(a).

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that in default judgment applications for damages arising from motor vehicle collisions, the provisions of section 1(1)(a) of the Apportionment of Damages Act apply. The court has discretion to hear oral evidence and must evaluate whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. In both cases, the plaintiffs failed to keep a proper lookout before crossing the road and were found to be negligent. The first plaintiff, Jeremiah Lesedi Maroga, was held responsible for 70% of his injuries, with the defendant liable for 30% of proven or agreed damages. The second plaintiff, Meriam Machete, was held responsible for 50% of her injuries, with the defendant liable for 50% of...

Court Disposition

Default judgment granted against the defendant. The Road Accident Fund is liable for 30% of the first plaintiff's damages and 50% of the second plaintiff's damages. Quantum postponed sine die. Costs awarded to both plaintiffs.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable for 30% of the first plaintiff's proven or agreed damages (Case No. 952/2024).
  • Quantum is postponed sine die for the first plaintiff.