Mokoila v Road Accident Fund (2019/0960) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1326 (24 December 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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 1326 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Mokoila v Road Accident Fund (2019/0960) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1326 (24 December 2025) Mokoila v Road Accident Fund (2019/0960) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1326 (24 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_1326.html sino date 24 December 2025 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO .  2019/0960 (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED DATE: 24/12/2025 SIGNATURE In the matter between: MOKOILA BENIDICTA KATLEGO                                                             Plaintiff and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant JUDGMENT BHOOLA AJ, Introduction [1]        The plaintiff, Ms Katlego Bendicta Katlego, instituted action against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) seeking damages arising from a motor vehicle collision that allegedly occurred on 27 July 2017 along Vryburg, Mahikeng, North West Province. [2]        The relief sought against the RAF includes 2,1       liability of 100% of the proven damages, 2.2       an undertaking for future medical/hospital expenses in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (“the Act”) in respect of future medical expenses, 2.3       general damages in the amount of R1 600 000.00 and 2.4       total estimated compensation for past loss of earnings in the amount of  R 4 329 174,00. [3]        The summons was served on the defendant on 19 March 2019. The defendant served and filed a notice of intention to defend on 2 April 2019, and its plea on 2 May 2019.  On the 10 March 2025, the defendant was ordered to attend a pretrial conference in terms of Uniform Rule 37 and file its discovery in terms of Uniform Rule 35, within ten (10) days of the order. The order was served on 24 March 2025 and the respondent failed to comply.   On 4 June 2025, the court granted an order striking out the defendant’s defence because the defendant failed to comply with the said order. The defendant was also barred from serving any expert reports in this matter. [4]        The matter proceeded by way of default judgment in terms of Rule 32(2), read with Rule 38(2) of the Uniform Rules, for the applicant to procced by way of affidavits.  The plaintiff was required to prove her claim on both the merits and quantum. The claim for general damages was postponed sine die . The only heads of damages to be determined are liability, loss of earnings, and the section 17(4)(a) undertaking. [1] Factual background [5]        The plaintiff’s factual account of how the motor collision occurred was not contested. The medico-legal reports prepared by the plaintiff’s expert witnesses were admitted into evidence in terms of Rule 38(2) of the Uniform Rules. All the reports remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. This justified the court in hearing the matter by way of affidavits and without the need for any further oral evidence. [6]       The plaintiff, born on 26 October 1979, was 38 years old at the time of the accident and 40 years old at the time of assessments. She matriculated and obtained her Bachelor of Arts in communication in 2004. She also completed training in media, secretarial course and project management work.  At the time of the collision, she was employed as a Communication Officer for the National Department of Water and Sanitation. She was on temporary incapacity leave since the accident and only returned to work in 2020. [7]      On the day in question, Ms Mokaila was a seatbelt restrained front seat passenger when she was involved in a motor collision. The driver of the insured motor vehicle lost control of his motor vehicle and was the only person involved in the collision. She therefore bears no contributory fault.  She had no recollection of the accident.  Her husband reported she was unconscious for five days.  She was subsequently taken to the local clinics, and hospitals in Vryburg and eventually treated at Gariep Mediclinic and Kimberly Mediclinic.  She was hospitalised and discharged on 15 September 2017. [8]       As a result of motor collision the plaintiff sustained severe and permanent injuries, which was corroborated by the hospital records and expert reports. The hospital records reveal she sustained a head injury with a laceration on the forehead, facial swelling, and CT scan findings of subarachnoid haemorrhage and features of diffuse axonal injury, a spine C5 compression fracture, and a musculoskeletal   right clavicle fracture. During her hospitalisation, she received treatment from medical experts were the laceration was sutured, other injuries were managed conservatively, and underwent rehabilitation. [9]        The RAF1 form, the accident report, the plaintiff’s affidavit in terms of section 19(f) of the Act and hospital records were submitted to the RAF in 2021. [10]      The expert reports, which are summarised below, were admitted into evidence, and are relevant to assessing the plaintiff’s damages. They provide findings on the nature, extent, and long-term implications of the injuries assisting the court in arriving at a just, equitable and fair quantum. Orthopaedic Surgeon: [11]      Dr MJ. Tladi examined Ms Mokaila on 29 November 2022 and 6 August 2025. She opined that the plaintiff was diagnosed with a head injury, a neck injury, a right shoulder rotator cuff tear, a forehead scar, blunt trauma to her back.  The neck x - rays showed spondylosis.  Her neck was operated on in 2018. Her range of motion was impaired.  She was transferred to Kimmed hospital for rehabilitation. Neurosurgeon [12]      Dr L.F Segwapa consulted with the plaintiff on 29 November 2022 and on 7 August 2025. He opined that she sustained a severe traumatic brain injury with focal brain damage to the left cerebral hemisphere, soft tissue injuries to the right acromioclavicular joint, and a C5 compression fracture. She also has residual right hemiparesis with slurred speech, neurocognitive impairments, emotional changes, forgetfulness, right hip pain and an 8% chance of developing epilepsy. Radiologist [13]      Dr Zwane noted the plaintiff sustained a cervical spine anterior spinal fusion with screws spanning C4-C6 cages in place. The C7 anterior lipping osteophyte and there was no further observation of any deformity. Clinical Psychologist [14]      Dr PM. Dlukulu who consulted with Ms Mokaila on 30 September 2022 and again on 6 August 2025 concluded that she has poor control of emotional response, is socially withdrawn, has severe anxiety, extreme depression and very severe PTSD levels of emotional stress. Occupational Therapist [15]      Ms. T.L Mahlangu evaluated Ms Mokaila on 13 June 2024. She opined that the plaintiff has a capacity for sedentary/light work. She reported that residual impairments affect daily functioning, emotional control, cognition, travel, and coping at work. She requires therapy but unlikely to regain pre-injury function, Industrial Psychologist [16]      Mr. N.L Nqapela, the industrial psychologist, assessed Ms. Mokaila on 13 June 2024. His findings are that pre- and post-accident her career trajectory from secretary, to Communication Officer, to Assistant Director and likely the Director of Communications and fell within Patterson D1 [2] scale. Post-accident she was hospitalised for three months, was reinstated after medical boarding appeal and her salary fell within Patterson C2 [3] scale in 2024. He concluded that the plaintiff is no longer fit for gainful employment in open labour market and her employability severely compromised. Algorithm Consultants and Actuaries [17]      The actuarial assessment done by Mr G.A Whittaker, was based on the opinions of the other expert reports. He quantified the plaintiff’s total past and future loss of earnings and provided the court with four options after the adjustment of contingencies. Legal Framework [18]      Section 17(1) of the Act obliges the Fund to compensate for loss or damages caused by the negligent driving of a motor vehicle. In this case, the driver lost control of the motor vehicle. This constitutes prima facie negligence. [4] Since the plaintiff is a passenger, she bears no contributory fault. With the plea being struck out, liability is uncontested. I accordingly find the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff. Having considered the plaintiff’s version of the accident, the Court is satisfied that the insured driver was negligent. The evidence establishes negligence on the part of the insured driver who was undeniably negligent regarding the accident. [5] However, since he was the only driver involved in the collision, I am satisfied that the defendant is 100% liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the motor vehicle accident. [19]      The court finds that the accident directly caused the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s admission into hospital and prolonged rehabilitation and continuous treatment is established from the records of various medical facilities. Although some ambulance and clinic records are missing, expert medical testimony bridges these gaps and confirms the causal connection between the accident trauma and the sequelae. Furthermore, the accident report confirms that the injuries were serious. This aligns with the approach adopted in Road Accident Fund v Kerridge [6] and Ntandoyenkosi v RAF [7] , where minor inconsistencies of this nature do not undermine the credibility of the plaintiff’s version where the core facts are corroborated. Authorities such as Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO [8] guide the court in assessing future loss of earnings, emphasising the use of actuarial calculations tempered by judicial discretion. Evaluation [20]      When evaluating the damages, the plaintiff’s injuries were not disputed, and the opinions expressed by the various expert witnesses are admitted uncontested. I am satisfied that, but for the accident, Ms Mokaila would have continued working at her full potential. Even though she occupies the same position as prior to the accident, she has been left with physical, cognitive, and emotional impairments that materially compromised her functional abilities. These deficiencies have significantly reduced her employment ability at the government department, she will not be able to compete equally with her peers in the open labour market. [21]      I am not persuaded, however, that Ms Mokaila is permanently unemployable. Whilst her ability to engage in her existing work has been adversely affected, she retains a degree of residual earning potential. Her capacity to generate income is not currently extinguished, as she remains employed in her same job, but it is limited. [22]      Contingency deductions are applied, to account for the uncertainties and vicissitudes of life that may affect a claimant's future financial position. [9] Robert Koch's work is often used to determine the contingency deductions, typically 5% for past loss and 15% for future loss. Courts are however not bound by these figures and may adjust them based on the specific facts of the case. Koch’s "sliding scale," deducts a percentage based on age and remaining working life. For example, a common rule of thumb is a 0.5% deduction per year to retirement, resulting in a 15% pre- morbid contingency for individuals between 30 – 45 years. I intend to deviate from this, considering the plaintiff’s risk factors and current employability status. [23]     With regard to quantum and loss of earnings, the plaintiff’s actuary presented two comprehensive reports with suggested contingencies based on different earning trajectories. In the first report the court was provided with four options with different retirement ages and different contingencies. The second report one projected amount with a suggested early retirement age of 50.  Since the second report supports the projections in the first report. I have looked at both reports in detail. The plaintiff was reimbursed for the three months she was recuperating. [24]      In the circumstances, I am not persuaded that the projected contingencies are justified.  I intend applying the following contingencies 5% past, 10% uninjured which is consistent with the plaintiff’s age of 40 and stable government employment, and 25% injured considering the epilepsy, disfigurement, memory loss and reduced competitiveness.  I am satisfied that these contingencies are fair and just in the circumstances, given the plaintiff’s age, career path and severe injuries. Consequently, the plaintiff’s loss of income is calculated as follows: Category Income (R) Contingency % Contingency amount Adjusted income Past loss uninjured – injured) R 410,110,00 5% R20,505,00 R389,605,00 Future (uninjured) R 10,639,110,00 10% R1,063,911,00 R9, 575,199,00 Section 14(4)(c) cap deduction (R4,266,905.00) Future uninjured after cap R5, 308,294,00 Future injured R1,843,893,00 25% R 460,973,25 R1,382,919,75 Net future loss R5,308,294.00 – R1,382,919.75 R3,925,374.25 Total LOE R3,925,374.25 + R 389, 605.00 R 4,314,979,25 Conclusion [25]      Having regard to the verified payslips, the actuarial methodology employed, and the statutory limitation imposed by section 17(4)(c) of the Road Accident Fund Act, the plaintiff’s past and future loss of earnings has been calculated on a transparent and principled basis. The past loss has been adjusted by a conventional 5% contingency, while the future uninjured and injured streams have been subjected to contingencies of 10% and 25% respectively, with the statutory cap applied before discounting. This produces a total loss of earnings in the amount of R 4,314,979.25 (four million, three hundred and fourteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy-nine hundred and seventy-nine rand and twenty-five cents), which represents a fair and balanced award, properly reflecting both the evidential record and the heightened risks faced by the plaintiff. Order [26]      In the result, I make the following order: 1.         The application in terms of Rule 38(2) is granted. 2.         The defendant is ordered to compensate the plaintiff 100% of the proven damages 3.         The defendant is ordered to make the following payment to the plaintiff a capital amount of R4, 314,979.25 (four million, three hundred and fourteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy-nine hundred and seventy-nine rand and twenty-five cents) in respect of loss of earnings. 4.         The issue of general damages is postponed sine die 5.         The total capital amount referred to in paragraph three above is payable within one hundred and eighty (180) days from service of this Court Order into the trust account of the plaintiff’s attorneys of record with the following details: Account Holder Name:     Sepamla Attorneys Bank:                                   ABSA Bank Account Type:                     Attorneys Trust Account Account Number:                4[...] Branch code                       Market Street, 301 305 REF:                                   VS/M1303/MVA 3616/21 6.       The defendant shall furnish the plaintiff with an undertaking as envisaged in Section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act, 56 of 1996 , for 100% of the costs of the future accommodation, treatment of or rendering of a services, or goods to her arising from the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle collision of  27 July 2017, after such costs have been incurred and upon proof thereof. 7.         The defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s taxed or agreed party- and- party costs on the High Court scale, such costs to include reasonable costs of all expert reports, medico -legal reports, actuarial calculations, and counsel’s fees, together with costs of preparation and attendance at court, if any, as allowed by the Taxing Master. 8.         No interest will be payable on the capital amount referred to in paragraph 2 except in the event of default, in which case interest will accrue at a rate of 10.50% per annum calculated from the date of service of this Court Order. 9.         If costs are not agreed, the plaintiff shall serve a notice of taxation on the defendant. Following taxation or settlement of the costs, the defendant shall make payment within thirty days (30) days. 10.       No interest will be payable on the costs referred to in paragraph 7, except in the event of default, in which case interest will accrue at the prescribed legal rate of 10.5% per annum, calculated from the date of taxation or agreement. 11.       No reservation fees shall be paid to experts for the trial as the trial proceeded in terms of Rule 38(2); 12.       The parties have entered into a valid contingency fee agreement. CB. BHOOLA Acting Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg Delivered:      This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected on 24 December 2025 and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their legal representatives by e mail and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.  The date for hand-down is deemed to be 24 December 2025. APPEARANCES Date of hearing:       21 October 2025 Date of judgment:    24 December 2025 For the plaintiff:        Adv. Lebogang Molope- Madondo (Tel: 076 184 -8957) Instructed by:            Sepamla Attorneys (Tel: 011 331 8561) For the defendant:   No appearance [1] Abrahams 2018 ZASCA 49 [2] 2023 Quantum Yearbook, Robert J. Kock [3] 2023 Quantum Yearbook, Robert J. Kock [4] Ngubane v South African Transport Services 1991(1) SA 756 (1) SA 756 (A). [5] See “Van der Walt and Midgley and Cases” Vol 1 par 96, Cooper: Delictual liability in motor law; Kabini v RAF (26209/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 100 (19 February 2020) at para 21. [6] (1024/2017) [2018] ZASCA 151 [7] (2023/116432) [2025] ZAGPJHC 466 [8] 1984 (1) SA 98 (A) [9] Road Accident Fund v Guedes (611/04) [2006] ZASCA 19 ; 2006 (5) SA 583 (SCA) (20 March 2006), Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO (1984) (1) (SA) 98 (A) sino noindex make_database footer start