- The High Court dismissed a RAF claim brought on behalf of Emmanuel Mzikayise Mtshali after finding the evidence about the crash was inconsistent and unreliable.
- The court found that the claimant carries the burden of proving negligence on a balance of probabilities and must present a credible and coherent version of events.
- The judgment shows that contradictory testimony and missing evidence can cause even a serious injury claim to fail.
Just because someone was injured in a crash doesn’t guarantee their Road Accident Fund claim will succeed.
The law requires the claimant to prove how the accident happened and to show that another driver was negligent. A recent judgment in the High Court in Johannesburg shows how quickly a claim can fail when that proof is missing.
Advocate Philineom Baloyi, acting as curator ad litem for Emmanuel Mzikayise Mtshali, brought the case against the RAF. The claim arose from a collision that allegedly happened on 12 August 2007 on Roodepoort Road.
The minor reportedly suffered serious injuries in the crash and sought compensation for general damages, medical expenses, and future medical costs. The trial focused only on whether the RAF was legally responsible for the accident.
Acting Judge N Mzuzu ultimately found that Baloyi had not proven negligence. The court concluded that the evidence presented did not establish what actually happened on the night of the accident and dismissed the claim.
Parties and the competing versions
Baloyi alleged that Lydia Mtshali, the child’s mother, was driving a Volkswagen Polo along Elias Motsoaledi Road when an unknown vehicle, with registration letters starting with “H,” struck her car from behind. According to the claim, the other driver’s negligence caused the crash and Emmanuel’s injuries.
The RAF disputed that version, arguing that Baloyi had misrepresented what happened. It suggested the accident may have involved only one vehicle and questioned whether events happened as described. With these conflicting accounts, the court had to decide which version was more credible and likely.
Evidence presented to the court
The applicant’s main witness was Mtshali, who testified that a minibus taxi followed her closely along Elias Motsoaledi Road. She said she changed lanes several times to create distance, but the taxi kept driving dangerously close behind her.
She testified that the taxi eventually struck her car from behind, causing it to overturn and come to rest near a tree. She described the chaos that followed and recalled asking people at the scene about her injured child.
However, her credibility became an issue during cross-examination. The court heard that she had previously submitted an affidavit as part of the RAF claim, describing the incident as a possible hijacking attempt. During the trial, she asked the court to disregard the affidavit and accept only the version she gave in court, conceding she had given more than one account of what happened.
Other witnesses were called, but their evidence did not clarify how the crash happened. An emergency services worker, referred to only as Mr Xaba, explained the general procedures that ambulance teams follow when responding to accidents, such as classifying injuries and transporting patients. However, his testimony did not shed light on what actually caused the crash.
Her attorney, identified as Mr Gaju, said they tried to obtain documents that might support the RAF’s version, but were told such records were not available. Even with these efforts, the court could not establish a reliable account of what happened.
The legal principles applied by the court
In civil cases, the burden of proof lies with the person bringing the claim. The plaintiff must show that their version of events is more likely than the defendant’s.
Judge Mzuzu referred to established case law on how courts evaluate disputed evidence. The judgment explains that courts look at credibility, reliability, and probability when deciding between different versions.
The court quoted the well-known principle from Stellenbosch Farmers Winery Group Ltd v Martell et Cie, which says that in factual disputes, courts must consider the credibility of witnesses, how reliable their testimony is, and how likely their story is.
The judge also stressed that the burden of proof never shifts away from the claimant. As the judgment put it: “It is common cause that the plaintiff bears the overall onus of proof… the onus of proof in the overall case never shifts and remains on the plaintiff.”
If the two versions completely contradict each other, the plaintiff only succeeds if the court finds their version is more likely.
Why the claim failed
After reviewing the evidence, Judge Mzuzu found that the plaintiff hadn’t proven negligence on a balance of probabilities. The court noted that Mtshali was the only witness who spoke about how the accident allegedly happened. The other witnesses could only talk about what happened after the crash.
The judgment notes: “Mrs Mtshali, the witness on behalf of the plaintiff, is the main witness in respect of the cause of action in this matter. Other witnesses testified about the aftereffect.”
Because her evidence contained contradictions and conflicting versions, the court couldn’t rely on it as a clear explanation of what happened.
The judge ultimately held, “It is my view that the plaintiff failed to prove on balance of probability the accountability and the negligence of the defendant.” As a result, the court dismissed the claim on the merits and made no order as to costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
