Moloi v Road Accident Fund (A110/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 81 (7 March 2024)

Moloi v Road Accident Fund (A110/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 81 (7 March 2024)

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that her injuries resulted in a future loss of earnings. The expert reports relied upon were outdated and did not reflect the appellant's current emotional and cognitive state or her present employment circumstances. The appellant did not testify to her current difficulties, and there was no evidence that her injuries would prevent her from reaching her career peak. The court found that the claim could not be confined to the three-year delay in entering the labour market and that the evidence did not support a finding of future loss. The discretion exercised by the court...

Citation
[2024] ZAFSHC 81
Parties
Appellant: Mananyana Jane Moloi; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2024
Case Number
A110/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Single Judge Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Mhlambi, Molitsoane, Mothimunye
Legal Topics
Loss of Earnings, Future Loss of Income, Expert Evidence, Onus of Proof
Delict Loss of Earnings Future Loss of Income Expert Evidence 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mananyana Jane Moloi

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Single Judge Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo erred in dismissing the claim for future loss of earnings.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant discharged the onus to prove loss of earning capacity resulting in actual future loss.
  3. 3 Whether the expert evidence was sufficiently current and probative to support the claim for future loss of earnings.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that her injuries resulted in a future loss of earnings. The expert reports relied upon were outdated and did not reflect the appellant's current emotional and cognitive state or her present employment circumstances. The appellant did not testify to her current difficulties, and there was no evidence that her injuries would prevent her from reaching her career peak. The court found that the claim could not be confined to the three-year delay in entering the labour market and that the evidence did not support a finding of future loss. The discretion exercised by the court...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order of costs of the appeal.