- Judge Bhoola held that contradictions in the RAF1 form, section 19(f) affidavit, and pleadings made it impossible to determine liability.
- Disordered and illegible hospital records, along with a delayed accident report, undermined proof of causation.
- The plaintiff was granted leave to correct procedural defects before re-enrolling the matter for default judgment.
The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg refused to grant default judgment in a Road Accident Fund (RAF) claim after finding the plaintiff’s documents riddled with contradictions and procedural defects.
In Sithole v Road Accident Fund, Judge CB Bhoola emphasised: “Default judgment is not automatic. Even where a defendant does not oppose, the court must be satisfied that the claim is properly pleaded, procedurally compliant, and supported by admissible evidence.”
Xolani Siyabonga Sithole filed a claim for damages arising from a collision on 25 June 2023 in Katlehong, Gauteng. Judge Bhoola highlighted that failure to follow proper procedures in submitting forms, affidavits, and medical records made it impossible for the court to determine liability or causation.
“The RAF1 form reflects that the plaintiff was self-employed, yet the pleadings state he was unemployed at the time of the accident. No explanation has been provided for this discrepancy,” Judge Bhoola said. The court noted further contradictions in hospital admissions and treatment histories, which were presented inconsistently across the RAF1 form, section 19(f) affidavit, and particulars of claim.
Procedural missteps undermine proof
The hospital records were disordered, partially illegible, and not presented chronologically. Judge Bhoola observed that “the plaintiff bears the duty to ensure that medical records are properly indexed and paginated. The disordered presentation renders the evidentiary package confusing.”
The accident report, completed two months after the collision, was missing critical information and was unexplained. “Without a coherent accident report and properly submitted records, the court cannot properly assess causation,” Judge Bhoola noted. These procedural lapses prevented the court from establishing a causal link between the collision and the alleged injuries.
No shortcuts in default judgment
Judge Bhoola stressed that procedural compliance is a prerequisite for a default judgment. “Where pleadings are contradictory or uncertain, the court is not empowered to grant judgment on speculation. Damages cannot be considered in the absence of proof of liability and causation,” he said.
Rather than dismissing the claim outright, the court allowed Sithole to file affidavits clarifying the hospital discrepancies, index and organise medical records chronologically, explain the delayed accident report, and amend pleadings where necessary.
Once these procedural defects are corrected, the matter may be re-enrolled for default judgment. Costs were ordered to be costs in the cause.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
