Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Ramarope v Road Accident Fund (751/2018) [2025] ZAGPJHC 246 (18 February 2025)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court found that the plaintiff suffered serious injuries, including a compound fracture of the right tibia and fibula, rendering him unemployable. The Health Professions Council confirmed the seriousness of the injuries, entitling the plaintiff to general damages. The Court accepted the expert evidence on affidavit under Rule 38(2). Actuarial calculations for past and future loss of earnings were accepted, subject to a 50% contingency deduction. After applying the agreed 70% apportionment of liability, the Court awarded R1 156 645 for loss of income and general damages. The defendant was ordered to provide an undertaking for 70% of future medical expenses under section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on scale B.

Court disposition

Plaintiff's claim for general damages and loss of earnings is upheld; defendant ordered to pay quantum and provide statutory undertaking.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application in terms of Rule 38(2) is granted.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the nett amount of R1 156 645 in settlement of the plaintiff's claim.
  • The defendant shall provide the plaintiff with an Undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act for 70% of such future hospital, medical or ancillary expenses as the plaintiff may require.
  • The plaintiff is entitled to recover his party and party costs as taxed or agreed. Counsel's fees to be on scale B.

02

Material facts

Parties

Thabiso Ramarope

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • General Damages Awarded: ZAR 700,000
  • Past Loss of Earnings (after Deductions): ZAR 190,250
  • Future Loss of Earnings (after Deductions): ZAR 462,100
  • Total Quantum Awarded: ZAR 1,156,645
  • Percentage of Future Medical Expenses Covered by Undertaking: ZAR 70

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Trial / Default Judgment After Settlement on Negligence and Quantum Hearing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Plaintiff argued that the injuries sustained were serious, as confirmed by the Health Professions Council of South Africa, entitling him to general damages. He submitted medical legal reports detailing the sequelae of injuries, including a compound fracture and unemployability. Plaintiff sought compensation for past and future loss of earnings, general damages, and future medical expenses. He requested acceptance of expert evidence on affidavit under Rule 38(2).
Respondent
The defendant did not oppose the claim, as the matter proceeded on a default basis. Liability had previously been apportioned at 70% in favour of the plaintiff. No substantive arguments were advanced by the defendant at this stage.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Road Accident Fund Act, Section 17

    Where injuries are confirmed as serious by the Health Professions Council, the plaintiff is entitled to claim general damages under the Road Accident Fund Act.

  2. 02

    Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 38(2)

    Expert evidence may be accepted on affidavit if the requirements of Rule 38(2) are met.

  3. 03

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

    Damages for loss of earnings must be calculated with reference to actuarial evidence and reduced for contingencies and apportionment of negligence.

  4. 04

    Road Accident Fund Act, Section 17(4)(a)

    The defendant is obliged to provide an undertaking for future medical expenses limited to the percentage of liability established.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court found that the plaintiff suffered serious injuries, including a compound fracture of the right tibia and fibula, rendering him unemployable. The Health Professions Council confirmed the seriousness of the injuries, entitling the plaintiff to general damages. The Court accepted the expert evidence on affidavit under Rule 38(2). Actuarial calculations for past and future loss of earnings were accepted, subject to a 50% contingency deduction. After applying the agreed 70% apportionment of liability, the Court awarded R1 156 645 for loss of income and general damages. The defendant was ordered to provide an undertaking for 70% of future medical expenses under section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on scale B.

Obiter and limits

  • The Court is indebted to counsel for the comprehensive heads of argument and the assistance provided in referencing relevant judgments.
  • The acceptance of expert evidence on affidavit under Rule 38(2) streamlines proceedings where the requirements are met.

Court disposition

Plaintiff's claim for general damages and loss of earnings is upheld; defendant ordered to pay quantum and provide statutory undertaking.

  • The plaintiff's application in terms of Rule 38(2) is granted.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the nett amount of R1 156 645 in settlement of the plaintiff's claim.
  • The defendant shall provide the plaintiff with an Undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act for 70% of such future hospital, medical or ancillary expenses as the plaintiff may require.
  • The plaintiff is entitled to recover his party and party costs as taxed or agreed. Counsel's fees to be on scale B.

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

[2025] ZAGPJHC 246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,

JOHANNESBURG

CASE NO: 751/2018

DATE: 18-02-2025

(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO.

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

(3) REVISED.

In the matter between

THABISO

RAMAROPE

Plaintiff

and

ROAD ACCIDENT

FUND

Defendant

JUDGMENT

WEIDEMAN, AJ:

The accident from which this claim arose occurred on or about 21 February 2015. The plaintiff was a pedestrian at the time. The parties had previously engaged in negotiations which resulted in the aspect of negligence becoming settled on or about 10 February 2017 on the basis of a 70%/30% apportionment in favour of the plaintiff.

In addition, on 11 December 2019, the Health Professions Council of South Africa confirmed that the plaintiff's injuries were serious, entitling the plaintiff to claim general damages.

The claim was before Court on a default basis. The plaintiff formulated his claim as follows in his particulars of claim:

1. Past loss of earnings of R332 938;

2. Future loss of earnings of R808 675;

3. General damages of R1 000 000; and

4. Future medical expenses of R280 000

According to the particulars of claim, the particularity of the plaintiff’s injuries were to be extracted from the medical legal report of Dr Schnaid, attached to the particulars of claim. Having considered the report for this purpose, the injuries are summarised as follows:

1. A laceration to the head and face with chipped upper and lower canines;

2. Soft tissue injuries to the left shoulder, the left elbow and both knees;

3. A compound fracture of the right tibia and fibula.

Before presenting his submissions on the aspects of general damages and loss of income, counsel for the plaintiff moved an application in terms of Rule 38(2) for the plaintiff’s expert witnesses’ evidence to be accepted on affidavit. That application was granted.

Counsel took the Court through the sequelae of the various injuries as recorded in the medical legal reports filed of record and then referred the Court to a number of judgments which had been uploaded as part of counsel's Heads of Argument. The Court is indebted to counsel for the assistance in this regard.

Having considered the injuries, and in particular the sequelae as set out in the various medical legal reports, I am satisfied that an amount of R1 000 000 in respect of general damages is fair and reasonable. My order accordingly is that the aspect of general damages will be dealt with on the basis that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of R1 000 000 for general damages.

Turning to the aspect of loss of income, the medico legal reports and agreements of experts make it clear that, but for the accident, the plaintiff would at best have had very modest income prospects and that now that the accident has occurred, he is factually unemployable.

The following factors are however also relevant to the outcomes referred to above and must be considered:

· the possibility of a residual earning capacity,

· periods of unemployment prior to the accident in casu, and

· the nature of the employment which would have been available to the plaintiff, but for the accident and whether the plaintiff would have been able to sustain it until normal retirement age.

· The contents of the joint minute between the industrial psychologists, signed by both on 13 November 2019.

After considering all relevant factors, the Court accepted the calculations of the actuary in respect of past loss of earnings in the sum of R380 500 and in respect of future loss of earnings in the amount of R924 200.

These figures must be reduced, both in respect of the accrued and prospective losses, to make provision for all the contingencies mentioned, by 50%.

The nett effect is that the claim for past loss of earnings is allowed in the sum of R190 250 and the claim for future loss of earnings in the sum of R462 100. Combined, it renders a total amount of R652 350.

The 30% apportionment on negligence must then be deducted leaving a net figure of R456 645 in respect of loss of income or impairment of earning capacity.

To this amount must be added the sum of R700 000, being the award for general damages after deduction of the apportionment on liability.

The combined total award in respect of the plaintiff's claims for loss of income and general damages is R1 156 645 to which must be added the Undertaking in terms of Section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act, limited to 70%.

The plaintiff is further entitled to his costs.

ORDER

My order reads as follows:

1. The plaintiff's application in terms of Rule 38(2) is granted.

2. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the nett amount of R1 156 645 in settlement of the plaintiff's claim.

3. The defendant shall provide the plaintiff with an Undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act for 70% of such future hospital, medical or ancillary expenses as the plaintiff may require.

4. The plaintiff is entitled to recover his party and party costs as taxed or agreed. Counsel's fees to be on scale B.

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

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 38(2)

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.