Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Mkhonza v Road Accident Fund (031315/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1226 (23 October 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the only evidence before it was the plaintiff's version of the accident, which was not inherently improbable. Accordingly, the defendant is liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries resulting in a 20% impairment of earning capacity. The court accepted the actuarial calculation for past loss of income (R248,235) and, after applying a 43% contingency to future earnings, determined an average future loss of income (R559,603.20). The total award for past and future loss of income is R807,838.20. The court granted the application to lead evidence by affidavit under Rule 38(2), ordered the defendant to furnish an undertaking for future medical expenses under section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act, and confirmed the validity of the contingency fee agreement.

Court disposition

Plaintiff's claim for past and future loss of income is upheld. Defendant is liable for 100% of proven or agreed damages. Application to lead evidence by affidavit is granted. Defendant to furnish undertaking for future medical expenses. Valid contingency fee agreement recorded.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application in terms of Rule 38(2) is granted.
  • The defendant is held liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven and/or agreed damages.
  • The defendant must furnish the plaintiff with an undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act for future medical expenses.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R807,838.20 in full and final settlement of past and future loss of earnings within 180 days of the order.
  • The aspect of general damages is postponed sine die.
  • The amount in paragraph 4 shall be paid into the plaintiff's attorney's trust account.
  • Interest and costs are awarded as per the draft order.
  • It is recorded that the plaintiff's attorney acts in terms of a valid contingency fee agreement.

02

Material facts

Parties

Mkhonza Siphosethu

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Past Loss of Income: ZAR 248,235
  • Future Loss of Income (average, After Contingency): ZAR 559,603.2
  • Total Award for Loss of Income: ZAR 807,838.2

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Trial / Final Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The plaintiff, a cyclist, was injured in a collision on 13 August 2019 at age 17. He claims the defendant is liable for damages due to negligence. The plaintiff sustained multiple serious injuries, including fractures and pneumothorax, which impaired his earning capacity. Actuarial calculations support the claim for past and future loss of income. The plaintiff also seeks an undertaking for future medical expenses under section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act. A valid contingency fee agreement is in place.
Respondent
The defendant did not provide a version contradicting the plaintiff's account. The only evidence before the court is the plaintiff's version, which is not inherently improbable. The defendant's liability and the quantum of damages are challenged only to the extent of the calculation method and the clarity of future earnings projections.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996

    A plaintiff must prove negligence on a balance of probabilities to succeed in a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

  2. 02

    Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO 1984 (1) SA 98 (A)

    Damages for loss of income must be supported by actuarial evidence and reasonable contingencies applied to future projections.

  3. 03

    Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997

    A contingency fee agreement must comply with statutory requirements and be validly executed and lodged.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the only evidence before it was the plaintiff's version of the accident, which was not inherently improbable. Accordingly, the defendant is liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven or agreed damages. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries resulting in a 20% impairment of earning capacity. The court accepted the actuarial calculation for past loss of income (R248,235) and, after applying a 43% contingency to future earnings, determined an average future loss of income (R559,603.20). The total award for past and future loss of income is R807,838.20. The court granted the application to lead evidence by affidavit under Rule 38(2), ordered the defendant to furnish an undertaking for future medical expenses under section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act, and confirmed the validity of the contingency fee agreement.

Obiter and limits

  • The court expressed reservations about the clarity of the circumstances of the collision but noted that the plaintiff's version was the only evidence before it.
  • The court highlighted the importance of actuarial calculations and reasonable contingencies in determining future loss of income.
  • The court noted the absence of clear documentation regarding the plaintiff's activities between 2021 and 2024 but found the evidence sufficient to support the claim for loss of income.

Court disposition

Plaintiff's claim for past and future loss of income is upheld. Defendant is liable for 100% of proven or agreed damages. Application to lead evidence by affidavit is granted. Defendant to furnish undertaking for future medical expenses. Valid contingency fee agreement recorded.

  • The plaintiff's application in terms of Rule 38(2) is granted.
  • The defendant is held liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven and/or agreed damages.
  • The defendant must furnish the plaintiff with an undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act for future medical expenses.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R807,838.20 in full and final settlement of past and future loss of earnings within 180 days of the order.
  • The aspect of general damages is postponed sine die.
  • The amount in paragraph 4 shall be paid into the plaintiff's attorney's trust account.
  • Interest and costs are awarded as per the draft order.
  • It is recorded that the plaintiff's attorney acts in terms of a valid contingency fee agreement.

Source and reliance status

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Judgment

[2024] ZAGPJHC 1226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH

AFRICA

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,

JOHANNESBURG

CASE NO: 031315/2024

DATE: 23-10-2024

(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO.

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO.

(3) REVISED.

In the matter between

MKHONZA SIPHOSETHU Plaintiff and

ROAD

ACCIDENT FUND Defendant

JUDGMENT

WEIDEMAN, AJ: Matter number 12 on the roll, case number 03135/2024, the matter of Mkhonza and the Road Accident Fund. This matter is on the roll for the week of the 22 October 2024. The matter was called on the 22nd, counsel made his submissions, and I indicated that I would like to consider the matter and would give my ruling this morning.

The date on which this accident occurred, the date of the accident is the 13 August 2019, and the plaintiff was born on the 1 June 2002. He was therefore approximately 17 years old at the time of the accident. Plaintiff was a cyclist and the collision occurred on the road.

Between the section 19(f) affidavit and which is to be found on CaseLines at 14-124 and the officers accident report form which can be found at 14-100 there appears to be some differences as to how exactly the accident occurred. I had sight of and considered these documents as a result of an application that was brought by counsel at the commencement of the hearing in terms of Rule 38(2) for the tendering of evidence by way of affidavit. That application is to be found on CaseLine at 02-1.

Despite my reservations as to the exact circumstances of the collision the only evidence that is before me is the version of the plaintiff and which is not inherently improbable. Based on that version the plaintiff should be entitled to succeed on the aspect of negligence.

As far as the quantum of the matter is concerned the plaintiff sustained multiple injuries including a fractured pelvis and a fracture of the left tibia and fibula. There were further a left pneumothorax with rib fractures and a fracture of the right malleolus.

The plaintiff was repeating Grade 11 when the accident occurred and succeeded with Grade 12 in 2020. I could not find a clear indication between the documentation of what exactly occurred during the period 2021 to 2024, but be that as it may, given the content of the reports file of record, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for loss of income and which is effectively the only issue that is before me. The calculation is to be found on CaseLines at 08-64.

I find no reason to deviate from the actuarial calculation as far as it relates to accrued or past loss of income and the amount of R248 235 in respect of past loss of income is allowed, after the deduction of a contingency.

I am a bit more concerned about the claim for future loss of income and in particular do not have absolute clarity as to whether the uninjured or the injured income represents the more realistic future projection of the earning capacity of the plaintiff.

The approach that I have adopted is because of the length of the period and the nature of the work that the plaintiff will be doing, to apply a contingency, the same contingency, to both uninjured and injured earnings at one percent per annum, which is about 43 percent over the period of the calculation. Looking at the two amounts that the actuary reflected in his report being R4 979 000 and R4 838 600, I have deducted a contingency of 43% to arrive at a future value of income of, in the once instance, R2 838 030 and in the other R2 758 002.

As I am not certain which of those figures are the correct one I have adopted the approach of adding them together and dividing them by two to arrive at an average which is R2 798 016. Based on the information available to me I am of the opinion that the plaintiff’s impairment of capacity is 20%. I have made provision for 20% of the amount of R2 798 000 and which is an amount of R559 603.20. If you add back the R248 235 in respect of accrued loss of income then the combined total for both past and future loss of income is R807 838.20. This is then the amount that I award in this matter in respect of loss of income.

There are multiple draft orders uploaded on CaseLines. Looking at the draft order at CaseLines 21-1 I follow that order but for the amount in paragraph 4 which reduces and changes to the said sum of R807 838.20. The balance of this order is acceptable and can stay as it is.

COURT: Counsel do you wish to amend the order and hand it up to me to mark or do you want me to read this order into the record?

APPLICANT’S LEGAL REP: M’Lord I would happily amend the order downstairs. It will probably take me about 10 minutes and then I can bring that back up to Your Lordship.

COURT: Thank you.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

ORDER

I then hand down the following order which counsel will prepare in hard copy for assistance:

1. that the applicant’s application in terms of rule 38(2) is granted.

2. The defendant is held liable for 100% of the plaintiff’s proven and or agreed damages.

3. To furnish the plaintiff with an undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act, Act 56 of 1996 as amended for the cost of future accommodation of the plaintiff in a hospital or nursing home or treatment of or rendering of a service or supplying of goods to the plaintiff arising out of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident.

4. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff an amount of R807 838. 20 in full and final settlement of the plaintiff’s claim for past and future loss of earnings within a 180 days of date of this order.

5. The aspect of general damages is postponed sine die.

6. The amount stated in paragraph 4 above shall be paid into the plaintiff’s attorney’s trust account with details and then insert the details.

Paragraph 7 deals with interest.

Paragraph 8 and 9 deals with cost.

Paragraph 10, just reconfirm to me the position in respect of the contingency fee agreement.

APPLICANT’S LEGAL REP: There, M’Lord there is a valid contingency fee agreement, and it makes provision for 25 percent inclusive of VAT.

COURT: And that has or will be uploaded?

APPLICANT’S LEGAL REP: That has been uploaded under the lodgement bundles M’Lord.

COURT: Paragraph 10 of the order then reads it is recorded that the plaintiff’s attorney do act in terms of the contingency fee agreement in this matter.

This then is the order in matter in number 12.

COURT: In case number 031315/2024 the matter of Mkhonza and the Road Accident Fund, I handed down a ruling in this matter earlier. That is now reduced to an order which I have in front of me consisting of 7 paragraphs.

The first deals with the aspect of negligence.

The second with the undertaking.

The third is in respect of loss of income. A payment of the amount of R807 838.20.

Paragraph 4 deals with interest.

Paragraph 5 and 6 with cost. There is a contingency fee agreement, and you say it complies.

APPLICANT’S LEGAL REP: That is correct M’Lord.

COURT: I mark it X for identification.

WEIDEMAN, AJ

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

DATE: ……………….

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO 1984 (1) SA 98 (A)

Case cited

Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Contingency Fees Act 66 of 1997

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.