Nomana Kalipha v Road Accident Fund

The plaintiff, Nomana Kalipha, instituted action against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) claiming damages of R3.3 million for a right ankle (Weber III) fracture allegedly sustained on 26 January 2022 when she was knocked down by an unknown motor vehicle while walking at night near Coffee Bay Junior Secondary School. The RAF initially denied liability and pleaded that the injury did not arise from a motor vehicle accident, alternatively alleging sole or contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The RAF’s defence was later struck out for failure to comply with discovery obligations. The plaintiff then applied for default judgment on liability only. She was the sole witness and relied on her oral evidence, hospital records, and a police accident report. She testified that she heard a bang, fell down, and later learned from a third party (Luyanda Tshemese) that she had been knocked down by a vehicle. She did not see or hear the vehicle before impact. Luyanda and the investigating police officer were not called to testify.

The application for default judgment was refused.

The case underscores that even where a defendant’s defence is struck out, a plaintiff in a Road Accident Fund claim must still prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the injury arose from the negligent driving of a motor vehicle. It highlights the strict approach courts adopt to speculative or conjectural evidence, particularly in claims involving unknown vehicles, and reinforces principles governing single-witness testimony and inferential reasoning in civil proceedings.