Mokgwadi v Road Accident Fund (57193/16) [2021] ZAGPPHC 567 (1 September 2021)

Mokgwadi v Road Accident Fund (57193/16) [2021] ZAGPPHC 567 (1 September 2021)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving loss of earnings or earning capacity on a preponderance of probabilities. There was no admissible affidavit from the plaintiff, and the expert evidence was either irregularly commissioned, unsigned, undated, or not supported by proper affidavits. The plaintiff's discovery affidavit was not properly signed or commissioned, and the supporting documentation was insufficient. The amount claimed in argument far exceeded the amount pleaded, with no amendment to the summons. The court held that it could not make an award based on hearsay or irregular evidence and that judicial oversight requires strict compliance with...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 567
Parties
Plaintiff: Mokgwadi Neo Dan; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 2021
Case Number
57193/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum Determination; Default Judgment
Outcome
Absolution from the instance granted; plaintiff's claim for loss of earnings dismissed.
Judges
C B Bhoola
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Loss of Earnings, Onus of Proof, Quantification of Damages, Commissioning of Affidavits
Delict Road Accident Fund Act Loss of Earnings Onus of Proof Quantification of Damages Commissioning of Affidavits

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mokgwadi Neo Dan

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum Determination; Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proving loss of earnings or earning capacity on a preponderance of probabilities.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient admissible evidence was adduced to enable the court to assess and quantify the alleged damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving loss of earnings or earning capacity on a preponderance of probabilities. There was no admissible affidavit from the plaintiff, and the expert evidence was either irregularly commissioned, unsigned, undated, or not supported by proper affidavits. The plaintiff's discovery affidavit was not properly signed or commissioned, and the supporting documentation was insufficient. The amount claimed in argument far exceeded the amount pleaded, with no amendment to the summons. The court held that it could not make an award based on hearsay or irregular evidence and that judicial oversight requires strict compliance with...

Court Disposition

Absolution from the instance granted; plaintiff's claim for loss of earnings dismissed.

Orders

  • Absolution from the instance is granted.
  • The plaintiff’s legal representatives are not permitted to recover any costs in the matter from any person or entity, save in relation to any previous orders of this court as costs.