Molefe v Road Accident Fund (86183/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 693 (12 August 2016)

Molefe v Road Accident Fund (86183/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 693 (12 August 2016)

The court found the plaintiff's version credible and consistent, supported by physical evidence and the sketch plan. The insured driver was found to be on the wrong side of the road, without a valid driver's licence, and his testimony was contradictory and unreliable. The court applied the principle that the party bearing the onus must present a version that is true and the other false. The insured driver was found 100% negligent, having failed to keep a proper lookout, driven at excessive speed, and failed to exercise reasonable care. The plaintiff could not have avoided the collision. Accordingly, the defendant is liable for 100% of the plaintiff's damages.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 693
Parties
Plaintiff: Lehlohonolo Vincent Molefe; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 August 2016
Case Number
86183/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeded on the merits; defendant found 100% liable for damages.
Judges
Makamu
Legal Topics
Negligence, Road Accident Fund Liability, Apportionment of Damages, Onus of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Negligence Road Accident Fund Liability Apportionment of Damages Onus 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lehlohonolo Vincent Molefe

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insured driver or the plaintiff was negligent and if such negligence was the sole cause of the collision.
  2. 2 Whether the insured driver was driving without a valid driver's licence.
  3. 3 Whether the insured driver failed to keep a proper lookout and drove at excessive speed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the plaintiff's version credible and consistent, supported by physical evidence and the sketch plan. The insured driver was found to be on the wrong side of the road, without a valid driver's licence, and his testimony was contradictory and unreliable. The court applied the principle that the party bearing the onus must present a version that is true and the other false. The insured driver was found 100% negligent, having failed to keep a proper lookout, driven at excessive speed, and failed to exercise reasonable care. The plaintiff could not have avoided the collision. Accordingly, the defendant is liable for 100% of the plaintiff's damages.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeded on the merits; defendant found 100% liable for damages.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable to 100% of the plaintiff's agreed or proven damages arising out of the motor vehicle accident occurred on 29 June 2013.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's taxed or agreed party and party costs of action to date, on the applicable High Court scale, including costs of trial bundles, counsel's fees, attorney's costs, and reasonable disbursements.