- The Northern Cape High Court found the provincial roads department negligent for failing to repair or warn about a hazardous edge-break on the R31.
- The court accepted that the vehicle lost control only after striking the road defect, rejecting claims that the driver swerved beforehand.
- 80% liability was placed on the MEC and 20% on the deceased driver due to excessive speed, given the road conditions.
The Northern Cape High Court has held the MEC for the Department of Roads and Public Works liable for a devastating accident that left a South African National Defence Force member paralysed, after finding that poor road maintenance and the absence of warning signs created a foreseeable and preventable danger on the R31.
Judge Lawrence Lever ruled that the provincial department failed its duty of care by allowing a severe edge-break, commonly described as a pothole, to remain unrepaired and unmarked on a major road used by motorists and heavy vehicles.
The accident occurred in February 2012, when Motlatsi Jacob Mofoka was driving a military vehicle from Postmasburg to Kimberley for an official SANDF meeting. After hitting the damaged section between Koopmansfontein and Danielskuil, the vehicle overturned, leaving Mofoka a quadriplegic. He later died, and the claim was continued by the executrix of his estate, Anna Mofoka.
Did the road defect cause the crash?
A key dispute was whether the accident resulted from the road defect or from Mofoka losing control beforehand. The MEC argued that the vehicle swerved before the pothole, which would absolve the state of liability.
The court ultimately rejected this version. Judge Lever accepted the evidence of Warrant Officer Molwane, who drafted the official sketch plan, finding it objective and reliable. The judge noted that tyre marks “started from the edge of the relevant pothole and there were no tyre marks before that point outside the edge of the road surface.”
Significantly, the MEC’s own expert conceded that the probabilities supported the view that the vehicle lost control after striking the edge-break. Judge Lever stated, “on the probabilities, the deceased lost control of the vehicle… as a result of hitting the pothole (edge-break).”
Attempts to rely on an earlier police statement by the passenger, Warrant Officer Frye, were dismissed as they were contradicted by physical evidence and expert analysis.
Duty of care and wrongful omission
The judgment engages deeply with South African delictual principles governing omissions by public authorities. Relying on the SCA’s decision in McIntosh v Premier, KwaZulu-Natal, Judge Lever reaffirmed that a negligent omission by the state is wrongful where public policy supports a legal duty.
“The first defendant had a duty of care to maintain the relevant road in a way that kept it free of hazards,” the judge held, adding that if immediate repair was not possible, the department had to ensure “a warning sign relating to such road hazard was appropriately placed.”
There were no warning signs at the time of the accident, despite longstanding deterioration and heavy truck traffic. Judge Lever concluded that “in respect of the relevant duty of care, the first defendant failed on both counts.”
Apportionment of damages
While the MEC was found primarily responsible, the court also considered contributory negligence. Both vehicle occupants were aware of the poor state of the R31, and the vehicle’s speed was increased to meet a scheduled appointment.
Although the MEC’s expert evidence on speed was rejected, uncontested testimony put Mofoka’s speed at about 110 km/h. Lever J found this excessive for the known road conditions.
“In these circumstances,” the judge held, “the deceased drove at a speed inappropriate to the prevailing road conditions,” contributing to the loss of control after striking the defect.
Liability was apportioned: 80% due to the MEC’s failure to maintain and warn, and 20% to the deceased for his driving.
Order and costs
The court ordered the MEC to pay 80% of the estate’s proven or agreed damages, plus 80% of the plaintiff’s costs. Costs relating to earlier procedural disputes were reserved for the quantum phase.
“The main cause of the accident,” Judge Lever emphasised, “was clearly the failure to maintain the road appropriately and more particularly the failure to warn road users of the particular road hazard.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
