Mmaphuti Maria Kgolane obo M K v Road Accident Fund

The appellant instituted an action against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for damages arising from injuries allegedly sustained by her minor child (MK) in a motor vehicle collision on 8 October 2013. In November 2018 the RAF made, and the appellant accepted, a settlement limited strictly to the negligence of the insured driver, expressly reserving all other issues. Despite this, in February 2019 the High Court granted an order recording 100% liability and directing the RAF to furnish an undertaking under s 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act. The matter then proceeded to trial on quantum. The RAF did not appear, and the trial proceeded by default. The appellant presented no viva voce evidence and relied only on unconfirmed expert reports, without affidavits or foundational factual evidence. The trial court dismissed the claims for general damages and loss of earning capacity due to failure to prove injuries, causation and loss. The full court dismissed the appeal. The appellant appealed further to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The Registrar was directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the Legal Practice Council of South Africa for its consideration.

The case reaffirms that settlement of negligence or the existence of a s 17(4)(a) undertaking does not dispense with the plaintiff’s duty to prove injuries, causation and loss in RAF claims. It underscores the requirement of admissible evidence, particularly in default judgments for unliquidated damages, and clarifies the limited legal effect of liability settlements and undertakings. The judgment also highlights professional ethical duties of legal practitioners and the courts’ supervisory role in default proceedings.