Msimamgo v Road Accident Fund (28738/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 638 (6 September 2021)

Msimamgo v Road Accident Fund (28738/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 638 (6 September 2021)

The court found that the only admissible evidence was that of the plaintiff's witness, whose version was consistent and unchallenged. The Road Accident Fund failed to discharge the onus of proving contributory negligence, as it did not call any witnesses or provide credible evidence to contradict the plaintiff's account. The plaintiff's actions in swerving to avoid the truck demonstrated a proper lookout and reasonable conduct under the circumstances. The RAF's reliance on the accident report was insufficient, as the report was not proved and the police officers who compiled it did not testify. The court concluded that the RAF was liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven damages....

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 638
Parties
Plaintiff: Bongumusa Cyril Msimango; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2021
Case Number
28738/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Phase; Merits Separated Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
The defendant is declared liable to compensate the plaintiff for 100% of such damages as the plaintiff may prove or may be agreed, caused by the collision on 28 December 2016.
Judges
Crutchfield
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Contributory Negligence, Personal Injury, Costs Award
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Contributory Negligence Personal Injury Costs Award

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bongumusa Cyril Msimango

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Phase; Merits Separated Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Road Accident Fund is liable for damages arising from the collision on 28 December 2016.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in the circumstances of the accident.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs on an attorney and client scale.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the only admissible evidence was that of the plaintiff's witness, whose version was consistent and unchallenged. The Road Accident Fund failed to discharge the onus of proving contributory negligence, as it did not call any witnesses or provide credible evidence to contradict the plaintiff's account. The plaintiff's actions in swerving to avoid the truck demonstrated a proper lookout and reasonable conduct under the circumstances. The RAF's reliance on the accident report was insufficient, as the report was not proved and the police officers who compiled it did not testify. The court concluded that the RAF was liable for 100% of the plaintiff's proven damages....

Court Disposition

The defendant is declared liable to compensate the plaintiff for 100% of such damages as the plaintiff may prove or may be agreed, caused by the collision on 28 December 2016.

Orders

  • The defendant is declared liable to compensate the plaintiff for 100% of such damages as the plaintiff may prove or may be agreed, caused by the collision on 28 December 2016.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs, including the costs of one junior counsel.