- The Mpumalanga High Court dismissed Lawrance Xolani Bulunga’s claim for past and future loss of earnings after finding that he failed to prove that his income actually decreased because of the accident.
- Judge Mangena ruled that expert opinions based solely on what a claimant reports, without documentary proof or independent verification, are insufficient to discharge the burden of proof.
- The judgment reinforces a critical principle in Road Accident Fund litigation that injury alone does not justify compensation for loss of earnings unless real financial loss is proven.
If you claim loss of income from the Road Accident Fund (RAF), you must prove that your earnings actually decreased because of the accident.
That was the central issue before the High Court in Mbombela involving sangoma, Lawrance Xolani Bulunga. He was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 3 August 2019. He sustained a wedge fracture and a rib fracture. The RAF accepted liability on the merits and settled general damages. What remained in dispute was his claim for past and future loss of earnings.
Bulunga told the court that he worked as a traditional healer and earned about R9 000 per month before the accident. His work required walking long distances and bending to collect herbs. After the accident, he experienced spinal pain and relied on initiates to assist him. He said the accident affected his ability to support the children in his care.
Under cross-examination, however, he conceded that he had no documentary proof of his income. He was paid in cash. He produced no receipts, no bank statements and no business records to show what he earned before or after the accident.
The arguments
The RAF’s position was straightforward. Bulunga returned to work shortly after the accident and continued performing his duties. On the evidence, he was still earning at his pre-accident level. There was therefore no proven financial loss.
Bulunga relied on the evidence of an occupational therapist and an industrial psychologist. They testified that his work capacity was reduced and that his earnings could decline in future as his condition worsened.
But Acting Judge MI Mangena emphasised the limits of expert evidence. Quoting earlier authority, the judge stated: “An expert is not entitled, any more than any other witness, to give hearsay evidence as to any fact, and all facts on which the expert witness relies must ordinarily be established during trial.”
The judge found that the experts relied largely on what Bulunga told them. They did not independently verify his occupation or earnings and had no documentary proof to support their conclusions.
The court’s reasoning
Judge Mangena referred to established authority on loss of earning capacity and repeated the principle that “a physical disability which impacts on the capacity to earn an income does not, on its own, reduce the patrimony of an injured person. There must be proof that the reduction in the income-earning capacity will result in actual loss of income.”
On the evidence presented, Bulunga had returned to work and was still earning at his pre-accident level. The court found that he had not shown any actual diminution of his patrimony.
The judge concluded, “There was accordingly no diminution of his patrimony attributable to his physical disability and no compensation should be made to him as he failed to prove the loss.”
His claim for past and future loss of earnings was dismissed. The court made no order as to costs.
Get your news on the go. Clickhere to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
