Authored By: Kgolagano Yende
Stadio Higher Education
Republic of South Africa
High court of South Africa
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Case n.0: 30134/2022
Date; 20 January 2026
The matter of C H DE BEER (plaintiff) and The Road Accident Fund (Defendant) Citation: De Beer v Road Accident fund (30134/2022) (2026) ZAGPPHC 395 Date of judgement: 20 April 2026
Bench composition:
On behalf of the plaintiff: Adv. P. Van Der Schyf, instructed by Slabbert and Slabbert Attorneys.
On behalf of the defendant: State Attorney, Pretoria
Introduction
In the case of C H DE BEER v The Road Accident fund it displayed just how slow to respond most departments are in South Africa. Courts however still offers justice to those who have suffered damages. This case illustrated how Road Accident Fund cases are handled, and its by reinforcing laws that already exist instead of creating new ones. These laws are applied to RAF cases in question. This case cited cases like RAV v CK, Hersman v Shapiro and Co as well as Esso Standards SA (Pty) Ltd v Katz to illustrate that lack of evidence should not impact the reason to make decisions. Self employed individuals end up suffering the most in these scenarios because they do not have PAYE slips nor Tax returns and the Road Accident Fund usually argue that of there is no proof of income then it means that there are no damages, which is not the case.
Facts:
The plaintiff ( C H DE BEER) suffered orthopedic injuries in a motor vehicle collision on the 29th of October 2020. Prior to the accident, he was self employed working in the construction industry. The accident had a traumatic impact on his wellbeing and also in casu. An industrial psychologist found that the plaintiff has made professional growth prior to the accident just based off of his morbid bank statements that he was requested to provide. The industrial later came to the conclusion that had the plaintiff never got into the accident, he would have been able to work until the age of 65. Due to the injuries that the plaintiff suffered, an occupational therapist stated that he has to downscale his business as he is unable to meet the physical demands that his work requires.
On the 2nd of June 2022, The Road Accident Fund (Defendant) was served with summons. The defendant failed to defend timeously and a default judgement was put into place on the 19th of January 2023. On the 9th of April 2024 the defendant submitted a notice with an intention to defend and on the 27th of August 2025(assumed it was made of the April 2024 order) the defendant made a request to cancel an alleged contribution of negligence. The court did not pursue this matter. On the 12th of April 2024 the court heard the default judgement and the defendant was found completely liable for the damages suffered by the defendant. The court served the defendant with Section 17(4) of the Road Accident Fund that states that the defendant must undertake the plaintiff’s future medical expenses and a partial advance of R2 Million must be awarded to the plaintiff. The defendant’s application to defend was dismissed between the 25 – 28 November 2025. The matter proceeded as a quantification hearing.
Evidence presented before the court
The evidence that was collected by the psychologist and the charted accountant was very limited. The plaintiff only had bank statements of their business for the span of July 2020 to May 2021. T he other bank statements belonging to the business only displayed statements for the span of January 2024 until May 2024, basically just only 3 months before the accident.
The Charted Accountant calculated the pre morbid income using the R594 856,73 that was earned in these months and converted it to R1 427 656,15 for 2021 to suggest the income the plaintiff will require in the future at least until the age of 65, plus the 8% annual growth factor.
The Charted accountant used the available bank statements to calculate the post morbid income for the period of 2024 – 2025 and the industrial psychologist presumed that there was no income flowing on after 2025.
When the plaintiff was uninjured, the 2021 figure illustrated the figure of round about R1.4 Million which suggested that the plaintiff earned between R503 968 in 4 months while he was injured. While counting ,the experts found the methodology for when the plaintiff was injured and when he was not injured inconsistent.
Actuary findings
The 8% inflation still applied regardless of the fluctuations within the construction industry, (-4% in 2020, -7% in 2021, +8% in 2022, +26% in 2023, +16% in 2024)
The plaintiff failed to provide bank statement of his business prior to the accident and that led to the court finding a reason to criticize him.
After an actuary compiled all the necessary calculations the figures were found as follows:
- Past loss = R1 482 453 gross (less 30%) = R1 037 717
- Future loss = R5 596 888 after 30% contingency
Total= R6 634 605
- RAF cap (-234 633 = R6 399 972)
Minimum interim payment= R 2 000 000 = R 4 399 927
Issues:
Issue 1: What is the total reasonable amount does the plaintiff get awarded for the loss of earnings?
Issue 2: How much can get subtracted for the Road Accident Fund claim because of the missing bank statements?
The defendant was found liable after the default judgement was put in place on the 12th of April 2026, hence the issue regarding the general issue was not presented before the court.
Legal principles
Determining the loss without enough evidence
The exact amount to prove that the plaintiff made a significant loss is hard to establish, more especially in this case because of lack of evidence. The South African law has emphasized that courts must “use the evidence in hand” instead of non-suit claimant. The case of RAF v CK 2018 (1) SA 365 (SCA), the Supreme court of Appeal stated that a physical injury which makes an impact on an individual income does not directly effect the patrimony. Proof must be submitted that the disability made an impact on the individual in casu. Once the loss of income has been established and the rightful compensation cannot be determined, courts must used the available evidence and make the best out of it.
In the case of Hersman v Shpiro and co it was stated that once there is a loss of income, the court must use any available evidence to determine the rightful amount that will be awarded to the plaintiff. Any sort of assessment is accepted in order to estimate the amount, and the court must certainly award for the damages suffered.
And in the case of Esso Standard SA (Pty) Ltd v Katz it was stated that the conclusion must be made based off of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff regardless of how little the evidence is, a compensation must still be awarded.
It is not easy to identify the damages suffered by the plaintiff. The court can make the decision based on fairness and power. In the case of AA Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v Magula 1978 (1) SA 805 (A) at 945, it was held that during assessment of damages, the court will make a decision based on the facts provided by the plaintiff.
The cited cases:
- Mullins v Road Accident Fund – Plaintiff had no records and a 20% contingency was applied.
- Khumalo v Road Accident Fund – plaintiff did not have a stable work record and a 50% contingency was applied.
- Nonzinya v Road Accident Fund – plaintiff did have proof of income and did not have a stable employment and a 30% contingency was applied.
Road Accident Fund limitations
Section 17 (4) © of the Road Accident Fund sets a specific legal limit on claims for those who suffered loss of income nor support.
Application
Relating the law to the facts provided
The plaintiff proved that there was a loss of income and the court accepted the given facts. The injuries and the report provided by the OT illustrated that the plaintiff cannot return to doing construction work. The IP report indicated total unemployability by 2025.
The issue in hand was quantification. The court was aware of the lack of evidence. The only bank statement available were from only 5 months prior to the accident and it was still used to estimate years of earnings until the age of 65. The plaintiff disclosed that he had submitted all the bank statements to his lawyers initially when the matter was first investigated, however after the default judgement on April 2024 the same papers were being asked of him again. The court established that him failing to submit all the bank statements that were requested of him was completely in his power.
It would be injustice to dismiss the claim due to lack of evidence as it would be shifting the focus from the initial damages that was suffered by the plaintiff.
Questioning the methodology
The methodology that the CA used was found to be very questionable by the court. The reason why the uninjured and the injured scenarios were inconsistent was because different methods were used. Considering the volatility of the construction industry the 8% given for the growth factor was found to be questionable too. The court eventually accepted the methodology because the were made by an expert.
Forming contingency:
Various cases were cited to make a decision
- 20% contingency in the case of Mullins v The Road Accident Fund whereby records could not be provided.
- 50% contingency in the case of Khumalo v The Road Accident Fund whereby the work record of the plaintiff was unstable.
- 30% contingency in the case of Nonzinyana v The Road Accident Fund whereby the employment of the plaintiff was not stable and proof of income could not be provided.
The plaintiff was self employed which meant that the his income varied year to year and the lack of full evidence did help to some extent. A contingency deduction of 30% was granted for the loss suffered both in the future and in the past.
Total calculations:
30% contingency and the actuary figures applied
Past loss = R1 037 717
Future loss = R5 596 888
Total = 6 634 605
Amount after RAF cap = R 6 399 927
R 2 000 000 interim payment already made R4 399 972.
This was the amount that the court found to be fit based off of the evidence provided. Conclusion
The following orders were made by the court:
The RAF was ordered to pay R4 399 972 due to the loss of income. Payment was to be made in 14 days. The defendant was ordered to pay for the plaintiff’s party and party costs on high court scale, along with the council fees for the 25th and the 28th of November 2025 (expert/actuary costs and cost of heads of argument). The plaintiff’s claim for general damages and past medical expenses was postponed. In terms of Section 17 (4) (a) of the RAF act the defendant must undertake the plaintiff’s future medical expenses.
Ratio decidendi: when a plaintiff that is self employed prove that they have lost their source of income. The court will still make a decision based off of the incomplete facts provided by the plaintiff. Projections made by the experts must be accepted by courts regardless and the contingency deductions will be made based off the provided facts.
