Nkuna v Road Accident Fund

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: Kgoele J, Roelofse AJ and Greyling-Coetzer AJ
• Judgment Date: 24 August 2023
• Citation: 2023 JDR 3191 (MN)
• Hearing Date: 28 July 2023
• Docket Number: A38/2022
• Court: Mpumalanga Division (Main Seat)

Roelofse AJ:

[1]

The appeal court resolved to produce one judgment in respect of both appeals under case numbers: 38/2022 and 39/2022. The appeal court took this decision because the judgments and the grounds of appeal in both appeals are in most respects similar.

[2]

The issues to be decided are similar because in both appeals the appellants’ claims against the respondents were dismissed because the court a quo (the court) found that the appellants had not proven that the injuries they sustained were a result of the motor vehicle accidents and were due to the negligence of another insured driver. In essence, the court found that the appellants had not discharged the burden upon them that another insured driver was involved in the motor vehicle accidents.

[3]

The court made the findings despite the appellants’ testimony in both trials that another unidentified vehicle had been involved in the motor vehicle accidents. The court made the findings because the respective police reports that were

2023 JDR 3191 p3

Roelofse AJ

introduced through the evidence of the appellants in both trials, showed that only the appellants’ vehicles were involved in the motor vehicle accidents.

[4]

In both trials, the appellants alleged that the accident reports were compiled by the police without any contribution from themselves and that the accident reports were wrong. Efforts by the appellants to rectify the accident reports were allegedly unsuccessful.

[5]

The respondents did not appear in both trials. The court proceeded in terms of Rule 39(1) of the Uniform Rules. [1] Therefore, only the appellants’ evidence was presented and considered by the court when it adjudicated the actions.

[6]

The appeals are before this court with leave of the court. The appeals are against the entire judgment of the court.

PROCEEDINGS AND FINDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE ACTIONS

Case number: 38/2022

[7]

The respondent did not file a plea. Only the appellant testified.

[8]

The appellant gave his version of how the collision occurred. It is not

2023 JDR 3191 p4

Roelofse AJ

necessary to go into much detail in this regard, save to state that the appellant introduced evidence that the accident report that was compiled by the police after the collision noted that the appellant’s vehicle was the only vehicle found on the scene.

[9]

The court found:

‘[12]

The Plaintiff in casu must have been conscious of the onus on his shoulders the moment it came to his attention that the accident report reflects that he lost control of the motor vehicle and it rolled, without any involvement of another vehicle. The details of the officer who completed the accident report were there in the report. No efforts were done to rectify those contents if they were not reflective of what happened. There is no doubt that rectifying these would not be easy without presenting the police with evidence that proves the involvement of another car.

[13]

While the task is obviously not an easy one, it should however be simple if there was indeed another motor vehicle involved. Before there could be a “correction” of Accident Report, the police would want an explanation on why he could not give his explanation on the date of the incident at the scene of the accident. Not only do the hospital records reflect that the Plaintiff was fully conscious upon admission, but his own evidence is to that effect. He testified that he regained consciousness while inside the ambulance at the scene. He concedes that the details entered in the accident report by the police, were his, in particular his names and his employment address. No explanation is given on how these found their way into the accident report. The only logical way that this can happen when the report is completed by an officer who does not even know the Plaintiff is that the plaintiff provided these to the police. It is however surprising that it is only this information that the Plaintiff is able to confirm but he distances himself with the part dealing with how the accident happened.

[14]

Some of these steps the Plaintiff could have walked in “rectifying” the faulty accident report could entail obtaining photographs of the motor vehicle taken soon after the accident so as to demonstrate the rear damages and/or paint of the other motor vehicle in it, if any. it appears...