South Africa Case Law

Annelie Agenbach v Road Accident Fund (2053/2022)

Annelie Agenbach v Road Accident Fund (2053/2022) [2025] ZAFSHC 193 (25 June 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2053/2022

Judge

Chesiwe

The Plaintiff was driving in an unfamiliar area and failed to exercise proper caution and lookout when approaching and entering the intersection. Although she looked both ways, she did not see the bus until it was too late, and her children alerted her to its presence. The Plaintiff conceded under cross-examination that she did not have a proper lookout. The Defendant did not call any witnesses or file expert reports, and the matter proceeded as a default judgment on the merits. The Court found that the Plaintiff was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and exercise the duty of care…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Road Accident Fund Claim
• Apportionment Of Fault
• Bodily Injury Compensation

Mkobeni v Road Accident Fund (12696/2013)

Mkobeni v Road Accident Fund (12696/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 132 (7 March 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

12696/2013

Judge

SK Hassim

High Court Road Accident Fund damages case on loss of earnings, with contingency deductions adjusted after evidence of reduced earning capacity.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Bodily Injury Compensation
• Loss Of Earning Capacity
• Contingency Deductions
• Contributory Negligence
• Road-accident-fund

Potgieter v Road Accident Fund (2416/2005)

Potgieter v Road Accident Fund (2416/2005) [2012] ZAECPEHC 46 (31 May 2012)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

2416/2005

Judge

P.W. Tshiki

The court held that the defendant is entitled under Rule 36(2) and (5) to require the plaintiff to undergo a second and final medical examination by its chosen clinical psychologist, as only one prior examination at the defendant's instance has occurred. The plaintiff's objections, including prior examinations by his own experts and other specialists, do not count towards the defendant's entitlement under the Rules. The court found that the proposed examination does not constitute an unreasonable invasion of the plaintiff's constitutional rights, as such rights may be limited in the interests…

Source excerpt

• Medical Examination
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Bodily Injury Compensation
• Rule 36 Procedure

Van Wyk v Road Accident Fund (05/15893)

Van Wyk v Road Accident Fund (05/15893) [2009] ZAGPHC 64 (6 February 2009)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

05/15893

Judge

P.A. Meyer

The High Court assessed RAF damages for a pedestrian injured in a 2003 collision, awarding 70% of proven general damages plus medical expenses and an undertaking.

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Bodily Injury Compensation
• Quantification Of General Damages
• Loss Of Earning Capacity
• Medical Expert Evidence
• Road-accident-fund

Mntambo v Road Accident Fund (16813/03)

Mntambo v Road Accident Fund (16813/03) [2007] ZAGPHC 151; 2008 (1) SA 313 (W) (22 August 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

16813/03

Judge

Jajbhay

The court held that the plaintiff's claim for past and future loss of earnings did not constitute a new cause of action but was part and parcel of the original cause of action for compensation under the Road Accident Fund Act. The original summons interrupted prescription for the entire claim, including all heads of damages arising from the collision. The amendment to the particulars of claim merely represented a fresh quantification and addition of further items of damages, not a separate or distinct claim. The plea of prescription was therefore bad in law and dismissed. The Act provides a s…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Prescription
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Bodily Injury Compensation
• Loss Of Earnings