Authored By:Tshegofatso Mitchell Mkoki
University of South Africa
Citation
Mothobi v Road Accident Fund [2025] ZANWHC 226
Court
High Court of South Africa – North West Division, Mahikeng
Year:
2025
Introduction
The ruling in Mothobi v Road Accident Fund, handed down by the High Court of South Africa, North West Division, is thoroughly examined in this case law summary. The plaintiff’s right to compensation for loss of earning capacity following a motor vehicle collision is at issue. The legal principle used, the factual background, the court’s reasoning, the importance of the ruling, its position in the larger jurisprudence of the Road Accident Fund (RAF) and South African delictual damages.
Facts
The applicant, Ms Patience Moratiwa Mothobi, was 38 years old, in December 2024 when she was involved in a motor-vehicle. Liability was 100% acknowledge by Road Accident Fund(RAF), thereby allowing the litigation to proceed solely on the matter of quantum. She held a National Diploma in Marketing, from the Durban University of Technology, with that qualification, she had short-term employment. She had positions such sales coordinator, bank teller, and educational assistant. Evidence showed that, despite not having a job at the time of the accident, she was actively looking for work and had necessary skills to find employment in administrative, clerical or sales settings. She suffered several serious injuries during the collision. These included multiple orthopaedic injuries, a right-sided hemiparesis, a right lung contusion, scalplacements and a moderate traumatic brain injury(TBI). Assessments which were conducted after the accident showed that persistent neurological symptoms that were consistent with post-traumatic mood disorders, including memory loss, difficulty concentrating, slowed processing speed, chronic headaches and emotional dysregulation. Her physical endurance, bilateral coordination and capacity to perform higher-order tasks necessary for employment were significantly limited, according to the occupational therapist. Medical experts generally agreed that her physical and cognitive impairments made her unfit for the labour market.
Legal issues
The court’s main concern was how to measure the loss of earning capacity. Given that the plaintiff was not working at the time of the accident, the Road Accident Fund (RAF) argued that her claim should be minimal, asserting that she had inconsistent employment record with no certainty of future earnings. In contrast, the plaintiff argued that she had reasonable employment prospects before the accident and that her injuries essentially prevented her from finding or keeping a job. The court therefore needed to determine how best to balance the
uncertainties of her pre-accident economic position against the clear and substantial impairments caused by the collision.
Arguments by the parties
The plaintiff argued that:
∙ She was employable before the accident and she would have continued to earning between R160 000 and R280 000 per annum
∙ The accident rendered her permanently unemployable.
∙ Expert and actuarial reports showed substantial future loss of earnings ∙ The actuarial computation (R2.6 million) should be guide the court
Road Accident Fund presented no case
The expert evidence showed that Ms Mothobi was unfit for competitive employment due to her severe traumatic brain injury, permanent right-sided weakness, chronic pain, and cognitive and psychological impairments, which included PSTD and major depression. The actuaries confirmed substantial long-term loss of earning capacity, and the neurosurgeon, orthopaedic surgeon, psychologist, occupation therapist, and industrial psychologist confirmed that her physical, cognitive, emotional limitations prevent her from sustaining consistent work, leaving her effectively unemployable.
Legal principles applied
The court’s decision was base of the following legal principles:
- a) Southern Insurance Association v Bailey NO (1984)
The court reiterated that calculating loss of earnings is inherently imprecise. Courts must rely on a “sound judicial estimate” rather than strict mathematical accuracy. Actuarial modes are helpful but not determintative.
- b) Rudman v Road Accident Fund (2003)
This case established hat when injuries limit a person’s ability to compete in labour market, diminished earning capacity, even if it is not immediately reflected in actual earnings is compensable.
- c) Road Accident Fund v Guedes (2006)
The courts emphasized that actuarial calculations are “tools” to guide judicial discretion, not formulas that bind the courts.
- d) Ngubane v South African Transport Services (1991)
Contingencies- adjustments for life’s uncertain ties like illness, unemployment, or career instability- must take into account the particulars of the plaintiff’s employment prospects prior to the accident.
Comparative Case Law: Rantloane v Road Accident Fund (2003)
The court compared the present case to Rantloane, where the claimant also held a Diploma in Marketing. The key distinction was that Rantloane remained permanently employed post-
accident at R39 200 per month and continued to progress in his career. Ms Mothobi, on the other hand, had a history of unstable employment and was unemployed at the time of the injury, and the currently has severe cognitive and physical limitations. The court determined that although actuarial modelling was suitable in both situations, more significant contingencies were required in this particular case.
Judgement
The court ordered the following:
- RAF must pay the plaintiff R900 000
This amount is compensation for the loss of future earnings. Payment to be made at her attorney’s trust account.
- Payment must be made within 180 days from the date of the judgement
- Interest
Interest will run according to the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act 55, read with section 17(3) of the RAF Act.
- Costs
RAF must pay the cost of this hearing only, including: counsel’s fees and party-and- party scale.
- Expert witness costs
The earlier order directing RAF to pay all expert witness fees will remain valid and cannot be duplicated.
- Section 17(4)(a) undertaking
RAF must comply with the previously issued undertaking for:
∙ Future medical expenses,
∙ Hospital expenses, and
∙ Related treatment.
- General damages remain final
The earlier award of R1 200 000 for general damages stands and cannot be revisited. Ratio Decidendi
The expert reports were a major source of information for the courts. Medical experts testified that the traumatic brain injury resulted in long-term cognitive deficit, impeding her ability to perform tasks that require sustained concentration, multi-tasking, or rapid decision-making. Deficits in executive functioning, processing, speed, and memory retrieval were revealed by neuropsychological tests. According to the occupational; therapy report, the plaintiff would not be able to meet the demands of full-time employment or maintain consistent productivity, even though some lightweight tasks might theoretically be manageable. Moreover, the plaintiff injuries would significantly limit her employability in the open labour market, according to the testimony from the industrial psychologist. Her
qualifications and work experience put her in a position to get administrative or sales roles prior to the accident, but her post accident limitations made her practically unemployed. The court pointed out that although actuarial computations offer a scientifically supported estimate of possible losses, they need to be modified to account for actuarial uncertainties, particularly in cases where the plaintiff had a history of sporadic employment. According to the uninjured earnings model, the plaintiff would have been hired for a simple administrative position. The potential lifetime loss figures generated by the actuarial calculation were greater than the final award. However, the court applied heavy contingency deductions, recognising the inherent uncertainty in her employment trajectory prior to the accident. However, he court emphasized that the plaintiff’s injuries had extinguished her real and likely future earning capacity. Applying these considerations, the court concluded that a fair award balancing the plaintiff’s likely future earnings and the uncertainties surrounding her pre-accident employment prospects would be R900 000.
Conclusion
The Mothobi v Road Accident Fund ruling highlight how difficult it can be to determine a claimant’s loss of earning capacity when they were unemployed or only employed occasionally employed prior to the accident. By granting R900 000, the court upheld the requirement that damages for loss of earning capacity be commensurate with the claimant’s actual economic potential. The case is a crucial point of reference for Road Accident Fund cases with comparable circumstances in the future. The defended, Road Accident Fund (RAF) was also ordered to pay the costs of the hearing, while previous orders regarding
expert cost and the section 17(4)(a) undertaking remain in force.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Case law
Mothobi v Road Accident Fund (2025) ZANWHC 226
Ngubane v South African Transport Services (92/89) (1990) ZASCA 148 Rantloane v Road Accident Fund (2003) ZANWHC 46 Road Accident Fund v Guedes (2006) ZASCA 19
Rudman v Road Accident Fund (2003) 2 SA 234
Southern Insurance Association v Bailey NO (1984) 1 SA98 Legislation
Prescribed Rate of Interest Act 55 of 1975
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
