Sivuyile Siyanda Novukela v Road Accident Fund

On 13 January 2017 at approximately 23:00, the plaintiff was driving his bakkie (registration NCW14737) from Mount Frere to Kokstad with a passenger, Thembelani Gxobole. Near Betshwana Location, Mt Ayliff, he moved from the slow lane to the fast lane to overtake a cadet vehicle. While overtaking, an oncoming truck was approaching from the Kokstad to Mt Ayliff direction. A motor vehicle (registration NCW 23600) overtook the truck and crossed the barrier line into the plaintiff's lane of travel. This vehicle collided with the plaintiff's vehicle on the front wheel, causing the plaintiff's vehicle to spin and land on the yellow lane facing Mt Ayliff. The plaintiff sustained injuries. The accident occurred at night in rainy conditions on the N2. The plaintiff was the only witness to testify, and the defendant presented no evidence as the insured driver was in Gauteng Province and unwilling to attend court.

• Whether the plaintiff proved on a balance of probabilities that he was injured during a motor vehicle collision
• Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus to prove that the Road Accident Fund is liable under section 17(1)(a) and (b) of Act 56 of 1996 to compensate him for damages
• Whether the plaintiff proved that the driver of the insured vehicle negligently caused the collision
• Whether there was a causal nexus between the negligent driving and the plaintiff's injuries

The court ordered: (a) The defendant is held liable for all agreed and/or proven damages incurred by plaintiff resulting from the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13 January 2017 at or near Betshwana Location, Mt Ayliff, Eastern Cape; (b) The determination of quantum is postponed to a date to be arranged with the registrar; (c) The defendant shall pay costs to date including costs of counsel in preparation for trial in terms of Scale B.

In Road Accident Fund claims, the plaintiff bears the onus to prove on a balance of probabilities that: (1) a motor vehicle collision occurred; (2) the driver of the insured vehicle was negligent; and (3) there is a causal nexus between the negligent driving and the plaintiff's injuries. Where the plaintiff presents credible and reliable evidence that remains unchallenged by the defendant, and where the defendant fails to present any contradictory evidence, the court is entitled to accept the plaintiff's version and find in favour of the plaintiff. The causal link required for RAF liability under section 17(1)(a) and (b) of Act 56 of 1996 is essentially the same as the causal link required for Aquilian delictual liability - there can be no liability if it is not proved that the wrongdoer caused the damage to the person suffering harm.

The court observed that in civil cases, while the onus is not as heavy as in criminal cases, where there are two mutually destructive stories, the plaintiff can only succeed if the court is satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities that his version is true and accurate and the defendant's version is false or mistaken. The court noted that the estimate of credibility of a witness is inextricably bound up with a consideration of the probabilities of the case. The court also remarked on the defendant's failure to bring the insured driver from Gauteng Province to testify, noting that the driver was "not willing to come to court," which effectively left the plaintiff's evidence unchallenged.

This case reinforces the application of standard civil litigation principles in Road Accident Fund claims, particularly regarding the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. It demonstrates that when a defendant fails to present evidence to challenge a plaintiff's credible testimony, the court will accept the plaintiff's version. The case also illustrates the practical application of Uniform Rule 33(4) in separating the trial on liability from quantum in RAF claims, which is a common procedural mechanism in these cases. It confirms that the causal link required for RAF liability under section 17(1) of Act 56 of 1996 is essentially the same as the causal link required for Aquilian liability in delict.