Letlhogonolo Sean Matsile v Road Accident Fund

On 5 November 2020, the plaintiff, a soldier employed by the South African National Defence Force (rank: Private), was involved in a motor vehicle accident on the N14 Highway. The plaintiff was travelling straight when a large liquid bulk carrier truck turned right across his path of travel, causing a collision. The point of impact was off the road on the plaintiff's left side, indicating he swerved left as the truck turned right. The collision occurred at high speed and the plaintiff's vehicle was a complete write-off. The plaintiff sustained multiple serious injuries including concussive head injury with loss of consciousness, neck contusion, left hand fracture, chest and abdominal contusions, lumbar spine fracture, right femur fracture, left acetabulum fracture with malunion and post-traumatic degenerative changes, open wounds on lower limbs, and right lower leg contusion. At the time of judgment, the plaintiff had been promoted to Corporal. The matter proceeded as a default judgment application on both liability and quantum, with the defendant having entered appearance to defend but not appearing at the hearing.

• Whether Section 18(3) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 limited or excluded the plaintiff's claim as a member of the South African National Defence Force
• Whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation from the RAF given potential entitlement to compensation under the Defence Act 42 of 2002
• The extent of liability for the accident and appropriate apportionment
• Quantification of damages including past and future medical expenses and loss of earning capacity
• Whether the plaintiff substantiated his claim for past medical expenses
• Assessment of future career progression and earning capacity given the plaintiff's injuries and employment as a soldier

1. The plaintiff's application in terms of Rule 33(4) was granted and the claim for general damages was postponed sine die. 2. The plaintiff's application in terms of Rule 38(2) for evidence by affidavit was granted. 3. The plaintiff's claim for past hospital and medical expenses was dismissed. 4. The defendant shall provide the plaintiff with an Undertaking in terms of Section 17(4)(a) of the RAF Act, limited to 75% of future hospital, medical and ancillary expenses after incurred and on submission of invoices. 5. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff R627,677 in respect of loss of income/impairment of earning capacity. 6. The plaintiff was awarded High Court party and party costs as taxed or agreed including costs of expert reports, with counsel's fees on Scale B.

1. Section 18(3) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 does not exclude claims by members of the South African National Defence Force but limits liability to avoid double compensation - the RAF is only liable for damages not covered or paid by the Department of Defence under the Defence Act 42 of 2002. 2. A plaintiff claiming damages must substantiate each head of claim with proper evidence; unsubstantiated claims (such as for past medical expenses without supporting documentation or separation) will be dismissed. 3. In collision cases involving a vehicle turning right across the path of a vehicle travelling straight, the standard apportionment of 75/25% in favour of the vehicle travelling straight applies, subject to the specific facts including contributory negligence factors such as failure to keep proper lookout, inattention, and failure to brake. 4. In quantifying future loss of earnings for military personnel, career progression to the highest possible rank should not be assumed where such progression depends on multiple factors and is possible but not probable; actuarial calculations must be adjusted with appropriate contingency deductions reflecting realistic career trajectories.

The court observed that it would have been useful to have more information available to assist in interpreting the accident circumstances beyond the affidavit, ARF sketch plan and photographs. The court also commented that the expert reports, including that of the industrial psychologist, were regrettably silent on what disability benefits would be available in the event that early retirement became necessary for the plaintiff, especially given his employment contract's provision for 'permanent incapacity leave.' The court noted that every Company or Squadron will have a WO2 but normally there will only be one WO1 (such as the regimental Sergeant Major), suggesting skepticism about projecting career progression to such senior ranks without stronger evidentiary foundation. The court expressed the view that post-accident contingency deductions should be lower than pre-accident contingency deductions where the post-accident calculation makes ample provision for possible limitations.

This case provides important guidance on the application of Section 18(3) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 in relation to claims by members of the South African National Defence Force. It clarifies that the provision is not intended to exclude Defence Force members from claiming against the RAF entirely, but rather to prevent double compensation where benefits are available under the Defence Act 42 of 2002. The judgment establishes that RAF liability is limited to damages not covered or paid by the Department of Defence. The case also demonstrates the application of standard apportionment principles (75/25 in favour of vehicle travelling straight) in circumstances involving a vehicle turning across traffic. It illustrates the evidentiary burden on plaintiffs to substantiate claims, particularly for past medical expenses, and the challenges in quantifying future loss of earnings for military personnel where career progression is not automatic but depends on various factors including need and qualifications.