Marongo v Road Accident Fund (3431/22) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1112 (8 October 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 1112 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Marongo v Road Accident Fund (3431/22) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1112 (8 October 2025) Marongo v Road Accident Fund (3431/22) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1112 (8 October 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1112.html sino date 8 October 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO:  3431/22 (1) REPORTABLE: /NO (2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: /NO (3) REVISED. DATE: 8/10/2025 SIGNATURE: In the matter between: BONGISENZO WELCOME MARONGO             Applicant and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND                                    Respondent JUDGMENT PIENAAR AJ Introduction 1 This is a claim by the Plaintiff against the Road Accident Fund for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision which occurred on or about 17 September 2020 at or near R61 road, Lusikisiki, Eastern Cape province. Bongisenzo Welcome Marengo was 35 years of age when the accident occurred. 2.         This matter was on the default judgment roll on 3 July 2025. When the matter was called, Plaintiff’s Counsel, Mr. Mosala, appeared, and the State Attorney, Mr. Shilenge, appeared on behalf of the Defendant. Both parties agreed that the matter could stand down until 7 July 2025 to allow the Road Accident Fund (RAF) to obtain instructions.On 7 July 2025, the State Attorney, Mr. Shilenge, made submissions confirming that the Defendant has expert reports. The Court instructed both parties to obtain joint minutes from the Occupational Therapists and Industrial Psychologists. Thereafter, the parties must instruct an actuary to prepare calculations based on the joint minutes of the Industrial Psychologists. 3.         On 9 July 2025, this matter proceeded with the determination of quantum in respect of loss of earnings and general damages. 4.         The Plaintiff accepted the Defendant's offer for merits of 90% in favour of the Plaintiff. The Defendant also made an offer for general damages, which the Plaintiff rejected. 5.         The Plaintiff requested to proceed by way of a Rule 38(2) application, which the Court granted. 6.         The Plaintiff served on the defendant on 4 July 2025 the amended Particulars of claim based on the actuary report of the Industrial joint minutes. The amounts is as follows: 6.1       Future medical treatments              R500 000-00 6.2       Past loss of earnings                      R500 000-00 6.3       Future loss of earnings                   R5 701 450-00 6.4       General damages                            R3 000 000-00 TOTAL                                                          R9 701 450-00 Quantum 7.         The Plaintiff bears the onus to prove the loss of earnings and earning capacity on a balance of probabilities. The legal position is well-established in Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO 1984 (1) SA 98 (A) and Rudman v RAF 2003 (2) SA 234 (SCA), which require the court to assess the difference in patrimonial value between pre and post accident earning potential, factoring in contingencies and future risk. The approach is not to “guess” but to exercise a sound judicial discretion based on the available facts and probabilities. 8.         The Plaintiff was evaluated by Dr N L Mabaso (Orthopedic Surgeon), Dr L F Segwapa; Nonhlanhla Mbokane (Occupational Therapist); Nokubonga Ngubane (Clinical Psychologist); Dr Zandile Madlabane - Luthuli (Industrial Psychologist) and Dr S S Selahle (Plastic Surgeon). Thereafter, the Plaintiff legal representative instructed an actuary. Joint MInutes 9.         The following joint minutes were compiled by the experts: 9.1       Joint minutes between Nonhlanhla Mbokane (plaintiff) and and Z Omarjee (defendant) dated 30 June 2025 9.2       Dr Zandile Madlabana-Luthillle (plaintiff) and Miss Dikeledi Veronica Letsie (defendant) 9.3       Johan Sauer actuary calculations based on the joint minutes of the Industrial Psychologists. Injuries sustained 10.       The Plaintiff sustained the following injuries as result of the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 17 September 2020: 10.1    Head injury - Mild concussive brain injury 10.2    Lower back injury - soft tissue injury of the lumbar spine Loss of earnings 11.       The Occupational Therapist agreed on the following vocational ability assessment findings: 11.1    Welcome was working as an Apprentice Boiler Maker at Sandock Astral Shipyards when the accident occurred in September 2020. 11.2    He reported that he was unable to resume working following the accident. Ms Mbokane reported that he dropped out before completing the apprenticeship term due to incapacity and could not qualify for his trade test however Ms Omarjee reported that he completed the apprenticeship in 2023 but he was not offered a full time position, which is usually the course of action following completion of the apprenticeship; 11.3    Welcome has no means of income and is reliant on family; 11.4    Prior to the accident, Welcome would have had the freedom of pursuing designated Boiler Maker work on the premise of his N3 Boiler Making qualification, secured his trade test and he would have fared better had the accident not occurred; 11.5    Following the accident, Welcome prognosis is unfavorable primarily due to the lower spine spondylitis changes and continuous management by an orthopedic surgeons recommended; 11.6    There were also residual cognitive impairments with memory problems, slight difficulty with complex mathematical skills, reduced writing speed, slight distractibility, and short tempered and irritable behaviour with anxiety; 11.7    Agreement is reached that Welcome presented with narrowed vocational options as compared to pre-morbidly. 12. Joint Minutes of Industrial Psychologists between Dr Zandile Madlabana (Plaintiff) and Miss Dikeledi Veronica Letsie (Defendant): Pre accident potential: We agree: 12.1    Welcome’ highest level of education is a N5 in Engineering studies (Boil making Certificate). Welcome completed Grade 12 in 2008 from Vakele Technical Senior School in 2007. In 2009, he obtained an N4 certificate in Engineering studies. In 2010, he obtained an N5 certificate in Engineering studiers. 12.2    Welcome reported to Dr Madlabana that he obtained security guard certificates in Grades E,D,C and B during the years 2011 to 2017. In 2014, he obtained a driving license. In 2019, he completed firearm and armed response training. 13.       Uninjured career prospects We agree: 13.1    He has worked predominantly as a semi skilled and skilled labourer. 13.2    At the time of the accident, he was working as an Apprentice Boiler Maker in the former sector. Welcome would have continued working in this capacity or similar. 13.3    Welcome could have continued working on this basis and earning R121 000,00 per annum (formal sector only) during the early career stage and progress to a mean of R212 000,00 per annum during the mid-career stage and thereafter to a mean level of R292 000,00 per annum/upper quartile of R545 000 per annum in their late career stage (age 45). He would have remained at this point with yearly increments (inflation related) until the normal age of retirement (65 years of age). Injured career prospects We agree: 13.4    Welcome’ vocational potential is reduced in comparison to that of his pre-morbid status. This is a result of the injuries he sustained in the accident. Welcome presents with physical, cognitive and emotional/behavioral deficits that comprise his normal functioning. 13.5    The Occupational Therapists agree that Welcome is no longer considered to be a candidate for most light work that demands upper limb exertion or lifting and carrying of heavy goods, all medium, heavy and very heavy duty work. 13.6    He will most likely remain unemployable for the remainder of his vocational life. 14.       The State Attorney, Mr. Shilenge, submitted that the Plaintiff did not sustain serious injuries and is therefore not unemployable. However, the court explained that, according to the joint minutes of the Industrial Psychologists, both experts agreed that the Plaintiff is indeed unemployable. Consequently, there is no basis for his argument. 15.       Plaintiff Counsel, Adv Mosala refer the court to the case law of Bee, indicated that a court is bounded to joint minutes experts. face of the decision by the Supreme Court of Appeal (the SCA) in Bee v Road Accident Fund [1] where the court at paragraph 64 onwards held: This raises the question as to the effect of an agreement recorded by experts in a joint minute. The appellant’s counsel referred us to the judgment of Sutherland J in Thomas v BD Sarens (Pty) Ltd. The learned judge said that where certain facts are agreed between the parties in civil litigation, the court is bound by such agreement, even if it is sceptical about those facts (para 9). Where the parties engage experts who investigate the facts, and where those experts meet and agree upon those facts, a litigant may not repudiate the agreement ‘unless it does so clearly and, at the very latest, at the outset of the trial’ (para 11). In the absence of a timeous repudiation, the facts agreed by the experts enjoy the same status as facts which are common cause on the pleadings or facts agreed in a pre-trial conference (para 12). Where the experts reach agreement on a matter of opinion, the litigants are likewise not at liberty to repudiate the agreement. The trial court is not bound to adopt the opinion but the circumstances in which it would not do so are likely to be rare (para 13). Sutherland J’s exposition has been approved in several subsequent cases including in a decision of the full court of the Gauteng Division, Pretoria, in Malema v The Road Accident Fund [2017] ZAGPHC 275 para 92. In my view, we should in general endorse Sutherland J’s approach, subject to the qualifications which follow. A fundamental feature of case management, here and abroad, is that litigants are required to reach agreement on as many matters as possible so as to limit the issues to be tried. Where the matters in question fall within the realm of the experts rather than lay witnesses, it is entirely appropriate to insist that experts in like disciplines meet and sign joint minutes. Johan Sauer Actuaries 16.       The Plaintiff obtained an actuarial report prepared by Johan Sauer Actuarial Consulting, dated 2 July 2025, based on the joint minutes of the Industrial Psychologists dated 1 July 2025. Mr. Mosala submitted that contingencies of 15% pre-morbid and 15% post-morbid are fair and reasonable. Mr. Sherlenga submitted that he does not have instructions, but based on the expert reports, an amount of R3 million is fair and reasonable for loss of earnings. 17.       It is submitted that contingencies of 20% for pre-morbid earnings would be appropriate and for post-morbid earnings unemployable. Uninjured scenario: Past earnings           761 652 - 5% = 723 569,00 Future earnings       6 029 909 - 20% = 4 823 927,00 Sub total                    5 547 497,00 Injured scenario: Past earrings             320 486,00 - 5% = 304 462 Future earnings       unemployable Total                          R5 243 034,00 General Damages 18.       According to Dr Marongo (neurosurgeon) Welcome sustained a direct trauma to the head. He had loss of consciousness from which he recovered at the scene. These are features of a mild concussive brain injury. He sustained a blunt chest trauma and soft tissue injury to the lumbar spine.He has memory problems. Dr Nokubonga Ngubane (clinical psychologist) reported that his memory and attention is poor and this may impact negatively on his job performance should he secure a job in the future. His physical complaints (persistent headaches causing nausea, back pain, chest pain, fatigue, cannot bend or lift heavy objects as this aggravates back pain, have led to a decreased quality of life, his ability to assume some activities of daily living has been compromised. 19.       Plaintiff’s Counsel, Adv. Mosala, submitted that an amount of R1.3 million would be fair and reasonable for general damages, while Adv. Shilenge is of the view that an amount of R500,000.00 would be fair and reasonable for general damages. 20.       It is trite that there is no hard and fast rule of general application requiring a trial court or a court of appeal to consider past awards. This is because it is difficult to find a case on all fours with the one being heard. 21.       The award of general damages is by no means an easy task. There is no basic formula for the assessment of this kind of damages. 22.       I considered the above submissions against the facts of this matter. In my view a fair and reasonable compensation for plaintiff’s claim for general damages is in the amount of R1 000 000. Order Accordingly, the following order is made: 1.         Application in terms of Rule 38(2) is granted. 2.         The Defendant is liable for 90% of the plaintiff’s proven damages (previously settled between the parties) 3.         The Defendant shall furnish the plaintiff with an undertaking in terms of Section 17(4) (a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 for the costs of the future accommodation of the plaintiff in hospital or nursing home or treatment of or rendering of a service to the plaintiff or supply of goods to the plaintiff arising out of the collision that occurred on the 17 September 2020, after such costs have been incurred and upon proof thereof; 4.         The Defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff an amount of R1 000 000,00 less 10% (merits apportionment ) = R900 000,00 in respect of General Damages. 5.         The Defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff an amount of R5 243 034,00 less 10% (merits apportionment) = R4 718 730,00 in respect of loss of earnings. 6.         The total amount of R5 618 730,00 (Five million six hundred eighteen thousand seven hundred thirty rand only) is payable into the following bank account: Name of Bank : FNB; Account Holder: Sontsele Attorneys, Account no: …….3255; Ref: 5272836 7.         The fees of employment of Counsel on Scale B for appearances of the relevant days at court, drafting of settlement proposal, consultation, Heads of Argument, preparation for trial. 8.         The Respondent shall be liable for interest on the above amount provided that same is paid within 180 days from the date of this Court Order, in which interest shall be paid after 181 days. 9.         The Respondent is ordered to pay the Applicant’s taxed or agreed party and party costs of suite on a High Court scale B to date hereof, subject to the discretion of the taxing master. 10.      In the event that the costs are not agreed, the Applicant agrees that the Applicant shall serve the notice of taxation on the Respondent’s attorneys of record; 11.      The Applicant shall allow the Respondent 14 days to make the said payment of the taxed costs. 12.      The Respondent is ordered to pay all medico legal reports, addendum and Joint minutes of the expert reports, and reasonable transpiration costs for attending medico legal examinations and the reasonable reservation fees of the experts. 13.      There is a valid contingency fee agreement. M PIENAAR ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA The judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties presentative by email, by being uploaded to CaseLines. The date and time for hand down is deemed to be 8 October 2025. Date of hearing       : 9 July 2025 Date of judgment   : 8 October 2025 Appearances: For the Plaintiff        : Adv C Mosala Instructed by             : Sontsele Attorneys email: sontseleatt@gmail.com Ref: MVA/Marongo/NL For the Defendant   : Mr Shilenge Road Accident Fund - State Attorney Link no: 5272987 [1] 2018 (4) SA 366 (SCA) paras 64-66. See also NJ v MEC of Health Eastern Cape [2023] 4 All SA 72 (ECB) (20 July 2023) at paragraph 84. sino noindex make_database footer start