- The Road Accident Fund recently suffered two major High Court defeats after judges upheld compensation awards worth more than R9.4 million.
- The High Court in Johannesburg dismissed the RAF's attempt to rescind a R5.5 million judgment, finding that the Fund had actually been represented at the original hearing.
- The Northern Cape High Court upheld a R3.88 million actuarial award, finding that an injured mine worker’s diminished earning capacity justified the full amount.
The Road Accident Fund (RAF) had a costly day in court as two High Courts rejected its efforts to avoid paying multimillion-rand compensation to road crash victims whose earning capacity was permanently affected by their injuries.
In judgments delivered on 25 August, the High Court in Johannesburg refused to overturn a R5,537,040 award made to a minor child. The High Court in Kimberley also confirmed a R3,884,100 award to a mine worker, despite the RAF's attempt to reduce the amount.
Johannesburg court rejects RAF's rescission application
The Johannesburg case came about after the RAF tried to overturn a February 2024 order that awarded more than R5.5 million for the minor’s future loss of earnings.
The RAF argued that the original judgment had been granted in its absence, relying on Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court and the common law to try to have the order set aside. It also claimed that the child’s educational progress showed the original assessment of future earning capacity was overstated.
Acting Judge P Verveen found that the RAF’s case fell apart because of its own evidence. The court found that the RAF had been represented at the original hearing by its own official, who told the court the fund was barred and had no instructions on the outstanding issues.
During the rescission proceedings, the RAF admitted that its founding affidavit was wrong in claiming it had not been present when the order was granted.
Judge Verveen ruled that a party cannot choose not to participate and then later claim it was absent. The judge also found that the RAF failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for its nine-month delay in bringing the application, and that its so-called new evidence was not backed by any admissible proof. The rescission application was dismissed with costs to the RAF.
Mine worker retains full compensation
In Kimberley, the High Court heard the RAF’s challenge to a mine worker’s claim for loss of earning capacity after he suffered serious spinal injuries in a road accident.
The plaintiff returned to work after the crash, but could no longer do the physically demanding job of operating heavy mining equipment without significant pain. Expert evidence showed that he was able to keep working only because of special accommodations at work, and he had little chance of finding another job in the open labour market.
The RAF argued that contradictions between the plaintiff’s testimony and parts of the expert reports undermined the claim. It also said the court should make a substantial contingency deduction because the plaintiff was still earning an income.
Judge APS Nxumalo rejected those arguments, saying that actuarial calculations are important for assessing future loss but do not bind the court. After considering the plaintiff’s age, education, injuries and limited employment prospects, the judge decided there was no reason for a contingency deduction and awarded the full actuarial amount of R3,884,100.
Courts reinforce evidence-based approach
Although the two cases involved different plaintiffs and different legal issues, both judgments reinforce the same principle. The RAF cannot undo properly supported awards by relying on procedural arguments or speculation about the expert evidence.
In Johannesburg, the RAF failed because it wrongly claimed it had not been in court. In Kimberley, it failed because it could not overcome the medical, vocational and actuarial evidence showing a real loss of earning capacity.
The result of both judgments is that compensation of more than R9.4 million remains intact, and the RAF must pay the successful parties’ legal costs in both matters.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
